The Project Gutenberg eBook of Theodosia Ernest
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Theodosia Ernest
Complete in two volumes
Author: Amos Cooper Dayton
Release date: January 27, 2026 [eBook #77796]
Language: English
Original publication: Memphis: South-Western Publishing House, 1866
Credits: Dustin Speckhals
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THEODOSIA ERNEST ***
THEODOSIA ERNEST
Complete in Two Volumes
By
A. C. Dayton
CONTENTS
• Volume I: The Heroine of Faith
• Introduction
• The First Night’s Study
• The Second Night’s Study
• The Third Night’s Study
• The Fourth Night’s Study
• The Fifth Night’s Study
• The Sixth Night’s Study
• The Seventh Night’s Study
• The Day After the Seventh Night
• The Eighth Night’s Study
• The Ninth Night’s Study
• The Tenth Night’s Study
• A Dream
• Preface
• Notice Of Theodosia
• Chapter I. A Dream
• Chapter II
• Footnotes
• Volume II: Ten Days’ Travel in Search of the Church
• Contents (Original)
• Introduction
• First Day’s Travel
• Second Day’s Travel
• Third Day’s Travel
• Fourth Day’s Travel
• Fifth Day’s Travel
• Sixth Day’s Travel
• Seventh Day’s Travel
• Eighth Day’s Travel
• Ninth Day’s Travel
• Tenth Day’s Travel
• Footnotes
• Volume I Index
• Volume II Index
THEODOSIA ERNEST;
OR
THE HEROINE OF FAITH.
By
A. C. Dayton.
Vol. I.
Memphis, Tenn.:
South-Western Publishing House.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866, by R. B.
Davidson, In the District Court of the United States for the Middle
District of Tennessee.
Theodosia Ernest:
Or, The Heroine of Faith.
INTRODUCTION.
DOUBTS SUGGESTED.
“Mother, have I ever been baptized?” The questioner was a bright,
intelligent, blue-eyed lad, some thirteen summers old. The deep
seriousness of his countenance, and the earnest, wistful gaze with which
he looked into his mother’s face, showed that, for the moment at least,
the question seemed to him a very important one.
“Certainly, my son; both you and your sister were baptized by the Rev.
Doctor Fisher, at the time when I united with the church. Your sister
remembers it well, for she was six years old; but you were too young to
know any thing about it. Your Aunt Jones said it was the most solemn
scene she ever witnessed; and such a prayer as the good old doctor made
for you, I never heard before.”
“But, mother,” rejoined the lad, “sister and I have been down to the
river to see a lady baptized by the Baptist minister, who came here last
month and commenced preaching in the school-house. They went down into
the river, and then he plunged her under the water, and quickly raised
her out again; and sister says if _that_ was baptism, then we were not
baptized, because we stood on the dry floor of the church, and the
preacher dipped his hand into a bowl of water, and sprinkled a few drops
on our foreheads: and she says Cousin John Jones was not baptized
either; for the preacher only took a little pitcher of water, and poured
a little stream upon his head. Sister says she don’t see how there can
be _three baptisms_, when the Scripture says, ‘_One_ Lord, one faith,
one baptism.’”
“Your sister is always studying about things above her reach, my son. It
is better for young people like you not to trouble yourselves too much
about these knotty questions in theology.”
“But, mother, this don’t seem to me to be a knotty question at all. One
minister takes a person down into the water, and dips her under it;
another stands on the dry floor of the church before the pulpit, and
sprinkles a few drops into her face; another pours a little stream upon
her head. Now, anybody can see that they do _three different things_;
and if each of them is baptism, then there must be three baptisms. There
is no theology about that, is there?”
“Yes, my child, this is a theological question, and I suppose it must be
a very difficult one, since I am told that some very good and wise men
disagree about it.”
“But, mother, they all agree that there is only one baptism, do they
not? And if there is only one, why don’t they just look into the
Testament and see what it is? If the Testament says sprinkle, then it is
sprinkling; if it says pour, then it is pouring; if it says dip, then it
is dipping. I mean to read the Testament, and see if I cannot decide
which it is for myself.”
“Do you think, my son, that you will be able to know as much about it as
your Uncle Jones, or Dr. Fisher, who baptized you, or Dr. Barnes, whose
notes you use in learning your Sunday-school lesson, and all the pious
and learned ministers of our church, and the Methodist Church, and the
Episcopal Church? They have studied the Testament through and through,
and they all agree that a child who is sprinkled is properly baptized.”
“Yes, mother, but if the baptisms in the New Testament were sprinkling
(and of course they were, or such wise and good men would not say so),
why can’t _I find it there, as well as anybody?_”
“Very well, my son, you can read and see; but if you should happen to
come to a different conclusion from these great and learned men, I hope
you won’t set up your boyish judgment against that of the wisest
theologians of the age. But here comes your sister. I wonder if she is
going to become a theologian too!”
Mrs. Ernest (the mother of whom we are speaking) was born of very worthy
parents, who were consistent members of the Presbyterian Church; and she
had grown up as one of the “baptized children of the church.” As she
“appeared to be sober and steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to
discern the Lord’s body,” she was doubtless informed, according to the
directions of the confession of faith, page 504, that it was “her duty
and her privilege to come to the Lord’s supper.” But she had felt no
inclination to do so until after the death of her husband. Then, in the
day of her sorrow, she looked upward, and began to feel a new, though
not an intense interest in the things of religion. She made a public
profession, and requested baptism for her two children.
The little boy was then an infant and his sister was about six years
old, a sprightly, interesting child, whose flowing ringlets, dimpled
chin, rosy cheeks, and sparkling eyes, were the admiration of every
beholder.
Twelve years had passed. The lovely girl had become a beautiful and
remarkably intelligent young lady. The little babe had grown into the
noble looking, blue-eyed lad, with a strong, manly frame, and a face and
brow which gave promise of capacity and independence of thought far
above the average of his companions.
Theodosia and Edwin. How they loved each other! She, with the doting
affection of an elder child and only sister, who had watched the
earliest developments of his mind, and been his companion and his
teacher from his infancy; he, with the confiding, reverential, yet
familiar love of a kind-hearted and impulsive boy, to one who was to him
the standard at once of female beauty and womanly accomplishments.
Theodosia came in, not with that elastic step and sprightly air which
was habitual with her, but with a slow and solemn gait; scarcely raising
her eyes to meet her mother’s inquiring gaze, she passed through to her
own room, and closed the door.
The mother was struck with the deep and earnest seriousness of her face
and manner. What could it mean? What _could_ have happened to distress
her child?
“Edwin, my son, what is the matter with your sister?”
“Indeed, mother, I do not know of any thing. We stood together talking
at the river bank, and just before we left, Mr. Percy came up to walk
home with her. It must be something that has happened by the way.”
The mother’s mind was relieved. Mr. Percy had been for many months a
frequent and welcome visitor at their pretty cottage, and had made no
secret of his admiration of her accomplished and beautiful daughter;
though he had never, until a few weeks since, formally declared his
love. Mrs. Ernest did not doubt but that some lovers’ quarrel had grown
up in their walk, and this had cast a shadow upon Theodosia’s sunny
face. She waited somewhat impatiently for her daughter to come out and
confirm her conjectures. She did not come, however, and at length the
mother arose, and softly opening the door, looked into the room.
Theodosia was on her knees. She did not hear the door, or become
conscious of the presence of her mother. In broken, whispered sentences,
mingled with sobs, she prayed: “Oh, Lord, enlighten my mind. Oh, teach
me thy way. Let me not err in the understanding of thy word; and oh give
me strength, I do beseech thee, to do whatever I find to be my duty. I
would not go wrong. Help! oh help me to go right!”
Awe-struck and confounded, Mrs. Ernest drew back, and tremblingly
awaited the explanation she so much desired to hear.
When at length the young lady came out, there was still upon her face
the same serious earnestness of expression, but there seemed less of
sadness, and there was also that perfect repose of the countenance,
which is the result of a newly formed, but firmly settled determination
of purpose.
Mrs. Ernest, as she looked at her, was more perplexed than ever. She
was, however, resolved to obtain at once a solution of the mystery.
“Mr. Percy walked home with you, did he not, my daughter?”.
“Yes, mother.”
“Did you find him as interesting as usual? What was the subject of your
conversation?”
“We were talking of the baptism at the river.”
“Of nothing else?”
“No, mother; this occupied all the time.”
“Did he say nothing about himself?”
“Not a word, mother, except in regard to the question whether he had
ever been baptized.”
“Why, what in the world has possessed you all? Your brother came running
home to ask me if _he_ had been baptized; Mr. Percy is talking about
whether _he_ has been baptized. I wonder if you are not beginning to
fancy that you have never been baptized?”
“I do indeed begin to doubt it, mother; for if _that_ was baptism which
we witnessed at the river this evening, I am quite sure that I never
was.”
“Well, I do believe that Baptist preacher is driving you all crazy. Pray
tell me, what did he do or say, that gave you such a serious face, and
put these new crotchets in your head?”
“Nothing at all, mother, He simply read from the New Testament the
account of the baptism of Jesus and of the Eunuch. Then he took the
candidate, and they went down both of them into the water, and he
baptized her, and then they came up out of the water. I could not help
seeing that this is just what is recorded of Jesus and the Eunuch. If
so, then it is the baptism of the Scriptures; and it is certainly a
_very different thing_ from that which was done to me, when Dr. Fisher
sprinkled a few drops of water in my face.”
“Of course, my dear, it was different; but I don’t think the _quantity
of water_ employed affects the validity of the baptism. There is no
virtue in the water, and a few drops are just as good as all the floods
of Jordan.”
“But, mother, it is not in the quantity of water that the difference
consists; it is in the _act_ performed. One _sprinkles_ a little water
in the face; another _pours_ a little water on the head; another
_buries_ the whole body under the water and raises it out again. Two
apply the water to the person, the other plunges the person into the
water. They are surely very different acts: and if what I saw this
evening was scriptural baptism, then it is certain that I have never
been baptized.”
“Well, my child, we won’t dispute about it now; but I hope you are not
thinking about leaving your own church; the church in which your
grandfather and your grandmother lived and died: and in which so many of
the most talented and influential families in the country are proud to
rank themselves, to unite with this little company of ignorant,
ill-mannered mechanics and common people, who have all at once started
up here from nothing.”
“You know, my mother, that it is about a year since I made a profession
of religion. I trust that before I did so, I had given myself up to do
the will of my Heavenly Father. Since then I have felt that I am not my
own. I am bought with a price. It is my pleasure, as well as my duty, to
obey my Saviour I ask, as Paul did, Lord, what wilt _thou_ have me to
do? You taught me this lesson of obedience yourself; and I am sure you
would not have me on any account neglect or refuse to obey my Saviour.
If HE commands me to be baptized, and the command has never been obeyed,
_I shall be obliged to do it._ And I trust my mother will encourage me
in my obedience to that precious Redeemer she taught me to love.”
One who looked into the mother’s face, at that moment, might have read
there “a tablet of unutterable thoughts.” She did not try to speak them.
We will not try to write them. She sat silent for a moment, drew her
breath deeply and heavily, then rising hastily, went to look for
something in her daughter’s room.
Theodosia was not only grieved but surprised at the evident distress
which she had given her mother. While on her knees in prayer to God
after her return from the river, she had determined _to do her duty_,
and obey the _commandment_ of Jesus Christ, her blessed Saviour,
whatever she might find it to be. But she had _not_ determined to be
_immersed_. That river baptism, connected with the reading of those
passages of Scripture, had only filled her mind with doubts; these
doubts had yet to become convictions. The investigation was yet to be
made. The question, Have I ever been baptized? had been prayerfully
asked. It was yet to be conscientiously answered. But if the very doubt
was so distressing to her mother, and so ridiculous to Mr. Percy (as it
had seemed to be from some remarks he made on the way home from the
river), how would the final decision affect them, if it should be made
in favor of immersion! Yet, aided by power from on high, she felt her
resolution grow still stronger to please God rather than those whom she
loved better than all else on earth. _And she had peace_ verging almost
on joy.
When her mother came back, Theodosia saw that she had been weeping; but
no further allusion was made to the subject of Baptism, until Mr. Percy
came in after supper.
This young man was a lawyer. He had united with the Presbyterian
Society, to which Mrs. Ernest and her daughter belonged, during an
extensive revival of religion, while he was yet a mere boy. Since he had
come to years of maturity, he had constantly doubted whether he was
really a converted man, and often seriously regretted the obligation
that bound him to a public recognition of the claims of personal
religion. He often made it convenient to be absent when the Sacrament of
the Supper was to be celebrated, from an inward consciousness that he
was an unfit communicant; yet his external deportment was
unexceptionable, and his brethren regarded him as a most excellent
member, and one whose intellectual capacity and acquirements would, one
day, place him in a condition to reflect great honor on the denomination
to which he belonged.
He had already taken a high position in the ranks of his profession; and
had come to the sage conclusion, that the possession of the heart and
hand of the charming Theodosia was all that was required to complete his
arrangements for worldly happiness; and having overheard her remark to
her brother, that if what they had just witnessed was baptism, they had
never been baptized, he hastened to her side, and on their way home
exerted all his powers of raillery to drive this new conception from her
mind.
As for himself, he had never had a serious thought upon the question. He
had been _told_ that he was baptized in his infancy, and took it for
granted that all was right. He had very serious doubts about his ever
having been converted, but never the shadow of a doubt whether he had
been baptized. When he listened to the religious conversation of some of
his friends, and especially of the young lady of whom we are speaking,
he heard many expressions, which, to him, were meaningless, and seemed
almost fanatical. They talked of sorrows which he had never felt; of
joys, the source of which he could not understand; and strangest of all,
to him, appeared that habitual subjection to the _Master’s will_, which
led them to ask so constantly, and so earnestly, not what was desirable
to themselves or agreeable to those about them, but _what was required_
by the command of Christ.
That one should do this, or that, under the conviction that to refuse or
neglect to do so would endanger their _soul’s salvation_, he could
easily understand; but how any one could attach much importance to any
act _not absolutely essential_ to obtain eternal life, was to his mind
an unfathomable mystery, He had himself determined to secure his _own
soul’s salvation_ at any cost, and if he had believed that immersion
would _insure salvation_, he would have been immersed a hundred times,
had so much been required. But thinking it as easy to get to heaven
without, as with it, the whole business of baptism seemed to him as of
the slightest imaginable consequence.
“What difference does it make to you, Miss Ernest,” said he, “whether
you have been baptized or not? Baptism is not essential to salvation.”
“True,” she replied; “but if my Saviour _commanded_ me to be baptized,
and I have never done it, I have not obeyed him. I must, so far as I
can, keep _all_ his commandments.”
“But who of us ever does this? I am sure I have not kept them all. I am
not certain that I know what they all are. If our salvation depended on
perfect obedience to all his commandments, I doubt if any body would be
saved but you. You are the only person I ever knew who had no faults.”
“Oh! Mr. Percy, do not trifle with such a subject. It is not a matter of
jesting. I do not perfectly obey. I wish I could. I am grieved at heart
day after day to see how far I fall short of his requirements. Oh, no. I
do not hope or seek for salvation by my obedience. If I am ever saved,
it will be by boundless mercy freely forgiving me. But then, _if I love
my Saviour_, how can I wilfully refuse _obedience_ to _his
requirements_? I do not obey to _secure heaven_ by my obedience, but to
please him who died to make it possible for a poor lost sinner like me
ever to enter heaven. I think I would endeavor to do his will, even if
there were no heaven and no hell.”
Mr. Percy did not understand this. If _he_ had been convinced that there
was no heaven and no hell, he felt quite sure that all the rites, and
rules, and ceremonies of religion would give _him_ very little trouble.
It was only in order _to save his soul_ that he meddled with religion at
all; and all that could be dispensed with, without endangering _his own_
final salvation, he regarded as of very little consequence. He read some
portion of the Scriptures almost every day (when business was not too
pressing). He said over a form of prayer; and sometimes went to the
communion table, because he regarded these as religious duties, in the
performance of which, and by leading a moral life, he had some
indistinct conception that _he was working out for himself eternal
salvation_. Take away this one object, and he had no further use for
religion, or religious ordinances.
“I know,” said he, “that you are a more devoted Christian than I ever
hope to be, but you surely cannot regard baptism as any part of
religion. It is a mere form. A simple ceremony. Only an outward act of
the _body_ not affecting the heart or the mind. Why even the Baptists
themselves, though they talk so much about it, and attach so much
importance to it, admit that true believers can be saved without it.”
“That is not the question in my mind, Mr. Percy. I do not ask whether
_it is essential to salvation_, but whether _it is commanded in the Word
of God_. I do not feel at liberty to sin as much as I can, without
abandoning the hope that God will finally forgive me. I cannot think of
following my Saviour as far off as I can, without resigning my hopes of
heaven. Why should I venture as near the verge of hell as I can go
without falling in? My Saviour died upon the cross for my salvation. I
trust in HIM to save me. But he says, ‘If ye _love_ me, keep my
commandments’—not this one or that one, but _all_ his commandments. How
can I pretend to love, if I do not obey him? If he commands me to be
baptized, and I have not done it, _I must do it yet_. And if _that_
which we saw at the river was baptism, then I have never been baptized.”
“And so you think that all the learned world are wrong, and this
shoemaker, turned preacher, is right; that our parents are no better
than heathens, and a young lady of eighteen is bound to teach them their
duty, and set them a good example. Really it will be a feast to the poor
Baptists to know what a triumph they have gained. It will be considered
quite respectable to be immersed after Miss Theodosia Ernest has gone
into the water.”
“Oh, Mr. Percy,” said the young lady (and her eyes were filled with
tears), “how can you talk thus lightly of an ordinance of Jesus Christ?
Was it not respectable to be immersed after the glorious Son of God had
gone into the water? If my dear Redeemer was immersed, and requires it
of me, I am sure I need not hesitate to associate with those who follow
_his_ example and obey _his_ commandments, even though they should be
poor, and ignorant, and ungenteel.”
“Forgive me, Miss Ernest, I did not intend to offend you; but really the
idea did appear exceedingly ridiculous to me, that a young lady who had
never spent a single month in the exclusive study of theology, should
set herself up so suddenly as a teacher of Doctors of Divinity. If
sprinkling were not baptism, we surely have talent, and piety, and
learning enough in our church to have discovered the error and abandoned
the practice long ago. But pardon me. I will not say one word to
dissuade you from an investigation of the subject. And I am very sure,
when you have studied it carefully, you will be more thoroughly
convinced than ever before of the truth of our doctrines, and the
correctness of our practice. If you will permit, I will assist you in
the examination; for I wish to look into the subject a little to fortify
my own mind with some arguments against these new comers, as I
understand there are several others of our members who are almost as
nearly convinced that they have never been baptized as you are, and I
expect to be obliged to have an occasional discussion, in a quiet way.”
“Oh, yes. I shall be so happy to have your assistance. You are so much
more capable of eliciting the truth than I am. When shall we begin?”
“To-night, if you please. I will call in after supper, and we will read
over the testimony.”
They parted at her mother’s door. He went to his office, revolving in
his mind the arguments that would be most likely to satisfy her doubts.
She retired to her closet and poured out her heart to God in earnest
prayer for wisdom to _know_, and strength to _do_ all her Heavenly
Master’s will, whatever it might be; and before she rose from her knees,
had been enabled to resolve, with full determination of purpose, to obey
the commandment, even though it caused the loss of all things for
Christ. The only question in her heart was now, “Lord, what wilt _thou_
have me to do?”
True to his promise, Mr. Percy came in soon after supper, anticipating
an easy victory over the doubts and difficulties which had so suddenly
suggested themselves to the mind of his intended bride. He could not
help admiring her more, and loving her better, for that independence of
thought and conscientious regard for right, which made the discussion
necessary; and it gratified his vanity to think how fine a field he
should have to display those powers of argument which he had sedulously
cultivated for the advantage of his professional pursuits.
How he succeeded will be seen in the next chapter.
THE FIRST NIGHT’S STUDY.
The book of testimony.
The question stated.
Meaning of the word baptize as settled by Christ himself.
Value of Lexicons.
A mother’s arguments.
The daughter’s answer.
First Night’s Study.
“Now, Miss Theodosia,” said he, “let us begin by examining the
witnesses. When we have collected all the testimony, we shall be able to
sum up on the case, and you shall bring in the verdict.”
“That is right,” said she, with a smile the first that had illumined her
face since she stood by the water. “‘To the law and to the testimony; if
they speak not according to _this word_, it is because there is no light
in them.’ Here (may it please the court) is the record,” handing him a
well-worn copy of the New Testament.
“Well, how are we to get at the point about which we are at issue? It is
agreed, I believe, that Jesus Christ commanded his disciples in all
ages, to be baptized.”
“Yes, sir, I so understand it.”
“Then it would seem that our question is a very simple one. It is,
whether you and I, and others who, like us, have been sprinkled in their
infancy, have ever been baptized? In other words, _Is the sprinkling of
infants, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the baptism
which is required in this book?_”
“That is the question,” she replied. “I merely want to know if I was
ever baptized. I was _sprinkled_ in the church. That lady, to-day, was
_immersed_ into the river. If _she_ was baptized, _I was not_. That is
the point. There is but one baptism. Which is it? the sprinkling or the
dipping?”
“Oh, if that is all, we can soon settle the question. Sprinkling and
pouring and dipping are _all_ baptism. Baptism is the application of
water as a religious ordinance. It don’t matter as to the _mode_ of
application. It may be done one way or another, so that it is done with
the _right design_. I see from what your difficulty has arisen. You have
misapprehended the nature of the word baptize. You have considered it a
specific, rather than a generic term.”
“I don’t know, Mr. Percy, whether I quite comprehend you. My difficulty
arose from a conviction that the baptism, which we witnessed to-day, was
just such a one as is described in the Scriptures, where they _went down
into the water and came up out of the water_—whereas my baptism had
nothing about it that at all resembled the scriptural pattern. Please
don’t try to mystify the subject but let us see which was the real
baptism.”
“I did not design to mystify the subject, but to bring it into a clearer
light. The meaning expressed by some words, is rather a _result_ than an
_act_. If I say to my servant, _go_ down to the office, he may _run_
there, or _walk_ there, or _ride_ there, and he obeys me, equally,
whichever he does—so that he gets there, it is all I require of him.
_Go_, then, is a generic or general word, including a possible variety
of acts. If I say to him, _run_ down to the office, he does not obey
unless he goes in this specified manner. So we call _run_ a _specific_
term. That is very plain, is it not?”
“Certainly, Mr. Percy; I comprehend that.”
“Well, then, I say that baptize _is a generic term_. Jesus Christ said,
baptize all nations. He does not say whether you shall do it by
sprinkling, or pouring, or dipping; so that you attain the end proposed,
you may do it as you please. If he had said, sprinkle all nations; that
is specific, and his ministers must have sprinkled. If he had said
_pour_ upon them with water, that is a specific act, and they must all
have poured. If he had said, dip them in water, then they must all have
dipped. The word would have required it. But he used the general term
baptize, which signifies _any application of water as a religious
ordinance_, and of course it does not matter as to the mode. You may
take your choice.”
“But I should, even in that case,” said she, “feel inclined to choose
the _same mode that HE did_, and which the _early disciples did_. There
must have been some reason for his preference. But how do you determine
that the word baptize is a generic term, as you call it—having three or
four different meanings?”
“Simply by reference to the dictionary. Look at Webster. He is good
authority; is he not. He defines baptism to be the application of water
as a religious ordinance. What more do you want?”
“But, Mr. Percy,” said Edwin, who had been a silent, but very attentive
listener, “the Baptist preacher told Mr. Anxious, the other day, that
baptize and baptism were not English words at all, but the Greek words
_baptizo_ and _baptismos_, transferred into the English Bible and not
translated. He said that King James would not permit the translators to
translate _all_ the words, for fear of disturbing the faith and practice
of the church of England, and so they just kept the Greek word—but if
they had translated it _at all_, it must have read _dip_ or _immerse_
instead of baptize.”
“Very well, Edwin, but it is not likely that the Baptist preacher is
much wiser than Presbyterian preachers, or Methodist preachers, or
Episcopal preachers. If dip had been the necessary, or even the common
meaning of the word, it is very improbable that it would have remained
for this unlearned and obscure sect to have discovered it. Such
statements may do very well to delude their simple followers, but they
cannot be expected to impose upon the educated world.”
“But, Mr. Percy, I have looked up the words in my Greek Lexicon, and I
find _it is just as he said_—Baptizo _does_ mean to immerse. Baptismos
does mean immersion.
“Oh, as to that, I suppose you got hold of a Baptist Lexicon.”
“Well, here it is; Donegon’s Greek Lexicon You can look for yourself.”
Mr. Percy (who, if he was not a thorough Greek scholar, yet knew enough
of the language to read it readily,) glanced at the word where Edwin had
marked it, and ran his eye along the cognate words.
“_Baptizo_—To immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to submerge, to soak
thoroughly, to saturate.
“_Baptisis_ or _Baptismos_, immersion; _Baptisma_, an object immersed;
_Baptistes_, one who immerses; _Baptos_, immersed, dyed _Bapto_ to dip,
to plunge into water, etc.”
He was astonished. The thought had never occurred to him before, that
baptize was not an English, but a Greek word; and that he should look in
the _Greek_ Lexicon, rather than Webster’s Dictionary, to ascertain its
real meaning, _as it occurred in the New Testament_. He turned to the
title page and preface for some evidence that this was a _Baptist_
Lexicon, but learned that it was published under the supervision of some
of the Faculty of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary at Princeton, N.
J.; the very headquarters of orthodox Presbyterianism.
Here was a new phase of the subject. He could only promise to look into
this point more particularly the next day; when, he said, he would
procure several different Lexicons, by different authors, and compare
them with each other.
“In the meantime,” said Theodosia, “there is an idea that strikes my
mind very forcibly; and that is, that _the Saviour himself has fixed_,
by his own act, _the meaning of the word as he employed it_.”
“How so, Miss Theodosia?”
“Just in this way; suppose we admit that it had a dozen meanings before
he used it, and that in other books it has a dozen meanings still, yet
it is certain that _he was baptized_. Now, in HIS BAPTISM a certain
_act_ was performed. It may have been sprinkling, pouring, or dipping;
but whatever it was, that act was what HE meant by baptism. _That act_
was what HE commanded. His disciples _must so have understood it_. He
gave (if I may speak so) a Divine sanction to that meaning. And when the
word was afterward used in reference to his _ordinance_, _it could never
have any other_. If he was immersed, then the question is decided;
baptism is immersion. If he was sprinkled, baptism is sprinkling. If he
was poured upon, baptism is pouring. So we need not trouble ourselves
about the Lexicons, but can get all our information from the Testament
itself.”
“There is a great deal of force in that suggestion, Miss Theodosia. It
is a pity you could not be a lawyer. (And he thought what a partner for
a lawyer she would be, and how happy it was for him that he had been
able to persuade her to promise to become Mrs. Percy.) But while it is
true that we _may_ find all the testimony that we need within the
record, yet it is important that we get at the _real meaning of the
record_. And as that was written in Greek, I see no reason why we should
not seek in the Greek for its true sense. If _baptizo_ means to dip, and
_baptismos_ means a dipping, an immersion, we shall be obliged to rest
our cause upon some other ground. There must, however, be some mistake
about this. I will look into it to-morrow.”
“I do not care what the Lexicons say,” rejoined Theodosia, “I want to
get my instructions entirely out of the word of God. I don’t wish to go
out of the ‘record,’ as you lawyers say.”
“You are right in that; but how are we to learn the meaning of the
record? If any document is brought into court, it is a rule of law,
founded on common sense, that the words which it contains are to be
understood in their most common, every-day sense, according to the usage
of the language in which they are written. Now this document, the New
Testament, it seems, was written in _Greek_, and we are in doubt about
the meaning of one of the _words_. We go to the Lexicon, not for any
testimony as to the facts of the case, but only to learn the meaning of
a very important word used by the witnesses. Matthew and several other
witnesses depose that Jesus and others were _baptized_. If they were
present in court, we would ask them what they mean by that word,
baptize. We would require them to describe, in other language, the _act_
which was performed—to tell us whether it was a sprinkling, a pouring,
or a dipping. But as we cannot bring them personally into court, we must
ascertain what they meant in the best way we can; and that is by a
careful examination of the words which they used, and the meaning that
would have been attached to them at the time they used them, by the
people to whom they were addressed. Now as the documents were written in
Greek, of course they used words in the common Greek sense. And we must
ascertain their meaning just as we would any other Greek word in any
other Greek author; and that is by reference to the lexicons or
dictionaries of the Greek language.”
“Very well, Mr. Percy; you talk like a judge. But what if you find all
the lexicons agree with this? What if they all say that the word means
dip, plunge, immerse?”’
“Why then, we must either admit that those who are said to have been
baptized, were plunged, dipped, immersed, or deny the correctness of the
Lexicons.”
“But if you deny the correctness of the Lexicons in regard to this word,
what confidence can we have in them in regard to other words? Brother
Edwin is studying Greek, and as often as he comes to a word which he has
not met with before, he finds it in the Lexicon, and so learns its
meaning; but if the Lexicons are wrong in this word, they may be wrong
in all. Is there no appeal from the authority of the Lexicons?”
“Certainly, we may do in Greek as we do every day in English studies; we
appeal from Johnson to Webster, and from Webster to Walker, and from
Walker to Worcester. If one does not suit us we may go to another.”
“One more question. Are any of these Lexicons _Baptist_ books, made for
the purpose of teaching _Baptist sentiments_? If so, you know they might
be doubtful testimony.”
“On the contrary, the Lexicons are made by classical scholars, for the
sole purpose of aiding students in the acquisition of the Greek
language. I do not suppose any one of them was made with any reference
to theological questions, and probably no one of them by a person
connected with the Baptist denomination. It is certain most of them were
not, and if they _all agree_ in regard to this word, it must be conceded
that they did not give it a meaning to suit their personal theological
views. There are a number of them in the College library, and I will
examine them all to-morrow, and tell you the result.”
Mr. Percy went back to his office studying the new phase of the question
presented in the meaning of the word. “If baptizo in the Greek means to
dip, in its primary, common, every-day use, then Jesus Christ was
dipped. Then every time the record says a person was baptized, it
expressly says he was dipped. I wonder if it can possibly be so. If so,
why have our wise and talented preachers never discovered it? or,
knowing it, can it be possible that they have _systematically concealed
it_?”
Theodosia retired to her chamber, where she spent a few moments in
prayer to God for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and then took her
Testament and read how they were baptized of John _in the river of
Jordan_. How Jesus, after he was baptized, _came up out of the water_.
How they went down both _into the water_, both Philip and the eunuch,
and he baptized him, and when they were come _up out of the water_, the
Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. She compared these statements
with what she had seen at the river, and did not need any testimony from
the _Lexicons_ to satisfy her that John’s baptism and Philip’s baptism
was immersion. Why else did they go into the water? Why else was it done
in the river? Ministers don’t go into the river to sprinkle their
subjects now-a-days. There was no reason for doing it then. Must I then
unite with this obscure sect and be immersed? Must I break away from the
communion that I love so dearly—from all my friends and relatives? Must
I part from my dear old pastor, who was, under God, the means of my
conversion—who has so often counselled me, prayed with me and for me,
wept over me, and cherished me as though I had been his own child? The
very thought was terrible. She threw herself on her bed and wept aloud.
Her crying brought her mother to her side. She kneeled beside the bed,
took the poor girl’s hand in both of hers, and bade her try to banish
this distressing subject from her thoughts. It was not worth while, she
said, for a young girl like her to set up her own opinions, or even to
entertain doubts in opposition to her minister and others who had spent
their lives in the study of this very thing. As for herself, if her
pastor, Mr. Johnson, said any thing was in the Bible, she always _took
it for granted it was there_. He had more time to look into these things
than she had. It was his business to do it; and he was better qualified
to do it than any of his people. And of course, if sprinkling was not
true baptism, he would never have practiced it.
“But, mother,” sobbed the weeping girl, “I must answer to _God_, and not
to pastor Johnson. Much as I love him, I trust I love my Saviour better;
and if my pastor says _one_ thing, and Jesus Christ _another_, Mr.
Johnson himself has often told us to obey God rather than man. I have no
choice; _I must obey my Saviour_.”
“Of course you must, my child; but Mr. Johnson knows better what the
Saviour commands than you do. He understands all about these questions.
And he will assure you that you have been properly baptized. I know that
he agrees exactly with Dr. Fisher, who baptized you, as you yourself
well remember.”
“I remember that he sprinkled a little water in my face, mother; but if
that was baptism which I witnessed to-day, he certainly did not
_baptize_ me.”
“Well, my dear, try and compose yourself, and go to sleep; and I will
send for our pastor to come and see you to-morrow. It will soon satisfy
your mind.”
“I hope he may; and I will try to sleep. Good-night, mother.”
THE SECOND NIGHT’S STUDY.
In which Theodosia is assisted by Mr. Percy, the pastor, and the
schoolmaster.
Presbyterian Authorities: Mr. Barnes; or, explaining scripture by
scripture.
Theodosia’s opinion of theological writers.
More authorities: Dr. McKnight, Dr. Chalmers, John Calvin, Prof.
Stewart, John Wesley, &c.
Second Night’s Study.
Punctual to his promise, Mr. Percy came in soon after supper on the next
evening, and found the Rev. Mr. Johnson, the pastor of the church,
already there. He had called early to take a social cup of tea, having
learned that Theodosia was “like to go crazy about these new-fangled
Baptist notions.”
He did not think she looked much like a maniac, however, though there
was a deep saddened seriousness about her face. Nor did she _act_ like a
maniac, for never before had she seemed so respectfully affectionate to
him and to her mother.
He had not said a word upon the subject of dispute, and seemed reluctant
to approach it; but when Mr. Percy came in, it could no longer be
postponed.
“I am very glad to meet you here, Mr. Johnson,” said the young man.
“Miss Theodosia and I had quite a discussion yesterday evening on the
subject of baptism. She has taken a fancy that she has never been
baptized; and I believe that I nearly exhausted my logic in trying to
convince her that she had. I hope your arguments will be more effectual
than mine.”
“Really, my children, I don’t know,” said the old man, “what I may be
able to do; I have never studied these controversies much; I think it is
better to live in peace and let every one enjoy his own conscientious
opinion. These discussions are apt to run into disputes and quarrels,
and often occasion a great deal of ill feeling. I have known them to
divide churches, and even families. It is better to avoid them.”
“But what are we to do with such lovely heretics as this?” said the
young man, with a smile and a sly glance toward her mother. “She must be
satisfied that she has been baptized, or you will have her running to
the school-house next Sunday to hear that uneducated Baptist preacher,
and ten to one, she will ask him to go down into the water and baptize
her according to the New Testament model. She says she wants to be
baptized as Jesus Christ was, and that was in the river, you know.”
“Oh, as to that,” rejoined the pastor, “there is no evidence that Jesus
Christ was immersed in the river at all. It has been satisfactorily
proved that he was sprinkled or poured upon; and it is very certain that
sprinkling was practiced by the apostles and early Christians.”
“Oh, I am so glad to hear you say that,” replied the young lady. “You
don’t know what a load it has taken off my mind. Do tell me _how it is
ascertained_ that Christ did not go into the river, and _what evidence
there is_ that he was sprinkled, and it was sprinkling which he
commanded. You can’t imagine how anxious I am to know.”
“Well, I don’t know that I can call up _all_ the evidence just at this
time, and we would not have time to go over it, if I could; but you may
be assured that there _is such evidence_, and that of the _most
satisfactory character_, or else all the learned and talented
theological scholars of the various Pedobaptist churches would not have
continued for so many ages, to teach and practice it.”
“Certainly, I have no doubt the evidence exists, since you say so; but
can’t you tell me _what it is_, or show me _where to find it?_ I shall
never be able to rest in peace till I am convinced that I have been
baptized. And if that which I witnessed at the river yesterday was
baptism, I am sure I never was.”
“Oh, don’t be so confident, my daughter. There are more _modes_ of
baptism than one. That was, perhaps, _one_ mode (though of that I have
some doubt). You were baptized by _another mode_. That _may have been_
baptism. Yours _certainly was_.”
“Well, do please prove it to me some way, Mr. Johnson. What you say is
something like what Mr. Percy said yesterday. He told me that baptize
was a generic term, expressing rather a certain result than any specific
act. I think that was the idea, was it not, Mr. Percy?”
“Exactly; and if so, I leave it to Mr. Johnson if the manner of reaching
the result is not a matter of indifference.”
“Certainly,” said the pastor; “‘baptism is the application of water as a
religious ordinance.’ It does not matter about the quantity of water or
the mode of applying it.”
“Yes; that is what mother said yesterday. And we looked in Webster, and
found that such was, indeed, the present English use of the word
baptize. But brother says baptize is a Greek word slightly modified, and
transferred from the Greek Testament to the English. _It is the New
Testament meaning in the time of Christ, and among the people for whom
the Gospels were first written_, that we want, not the meaning that it
_has acquired_ in the English since its transfer to our language.”
“You see, pastor, she is going to be hard to satisfy. She pleads her
cause like a lawyer.”
“No, no, Mr. Percy, I will not be hard to satisfy. I desire, I long, I
_pray_ to be satisfied. I can never rest till I am satisfied. I only ask
for _the evidence_. You said yesterday that _baptizo_ was a generic term
meaning to sprinkle; to pour, or to dip; but we found it in the Lexicon,
and it proved to be a specific term meaning only to dip. Not a word was
there about sprinkling or pouring. It was simply and only dipping.
To-day, Mr. Johnson tells me about several _modes_—but they are not
modes of dipping. And yet if the Greek word _baptismos_, baptism, means
_dipping_, then they must, in order to be modes of baptism, be modes of
dipping. But, Mr. Percy, you have not yet told us the result of your
examination of other Lexicons.”
“We can make nothing out of them. I am sorry to say they all agree
substantially with the one you have in the house. If we trust to them we
must grant that the word means primarily and ordinarily to dip, to
plunge, to immerse. Of this there is no doubt.”
“Then I am more perplexed than ever. You said yesterday that in order to
know what the act was which the disciples performed and Christ
commanded, we must ascertain the precise meaning of baptize, as they
employed it in the Greek language. You have examined all the Lexicons
(the highest authorities) and find they all agree in saying it was dip,
plunge, immerse. You admitted yesterday that if they should agree in
this, the question was settled. If they said baptize meant to dip, and
_baptismos_ a dipping or immersion, then every time we read that one was
baptized, we must understand that he was immersed. I thought that was a
plain, straightforward case. I felt that I could understand it. Well,
now you say you have examined carefully the other Lexicons, and they all
agree with this. No one says sprinkle, no was says pour—all say dip, and
consequently the Gospel says that Jesus was _dipped_ of John in the
river of Jordan. But then our pastor says that _he_ has evidence that
Jesus did not enter the river at all, and that he was _sprinkled_, and
not dipped. Of course he would not say it, unless it was so, but I
really don’t understand how it could be so.”
“I have some curiosity on that point myself,” said Mr. Percy, evidently
relived to find he could (for the moment at least), take the other side
of the question. “I find myself in a very close place. These Lexicons
have killed me. I don’t know what to say. I suppose, of course, there is
some way to get around the difficulty; but I must leave it to our pastor
to point it out. For my part, I submit the case.”
“Really,” said Mr. Johnson, “the question never presented itself to me
in just this light before. You must give me a little time to consider
about it. And in the meantime let me beg of you both that you will
examine some of the standard writers upon the subject. I do not think
you have done this yet. What have you in the house?”
“Not a book upon the subject, except it be the Bible, and I don’t much
care to read any other till we have examined that. If sprinkling is
there, it ought to be so plainly taught that I can see it for myself. If
I can’t find it, I will always doubt if it is there,” rejoined the young
lady.
“True, my child,” said the pastor; “but we often fail to see things at
first glance, which are very evident when they have once been pointed
out, and our attention fixed upon them. This is the advantage of using
proper helps to understand the Scriptures. Those not familiar with the
language in which they were written, and with the customs and manners of
the people to whom they were originally addressed, will derive great
assistance from judicious criticisms. I like, myself, always to read a
commentary on every chapter that I attempt to understand.”
“Oh, as to commentaries, we have Barnes’ Notes on the Gospels, and on
some of the Epistles. And we have McKnight’s exposition and new
translation of the Epistles. Uncle Jones admires these old volumes of
McKnight’s very much, but they always seemed very dry to me. I love Mr.
Barnes, and have studied his notes in Sunday-school and Bible class all
my life.”
“Mr. Barnes is a very learned and eminent divine,” replied the pastor.
“His notes have attained a wide circulation, and won for him an enduring
reputation. You cannot follow a safer guide. Have you examined him upon
the subject?”
“I suppose,” said she, “that I have read it a dozen times, but I never
thought any thing particularly about it, and don’t recollect a word.”
“Suppose, then, you get his Notes, and let us look at them a moment
before I leave. I can stay but a few minutes longer.”
Edwin had found the volume while they were talking of it, and now handed
it to the pastor.
“I suppose we shall find it here, Matthew iii. 6, as this is the place
where the word baptize first occurs. Mr. Percy, will you have the
kindness to read it aloud for our common benefit?”
Mr. Percy read: “And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their
sins.” “The word baptize signifies, originally, to _tinge_, to _dye_, to
_stain_, as those who _dye_ clothes. It here means to cleanse or wash
any thing by the application of water. (See note, Mark vii. 4.)
“Washing or ablution was much in use among the Jews, as one of the rites
of their religion. It was not customary, however, to _baptize_ those who
were converted to the Jewish religion until after the Babylonish
captivity.
“At the time of John, and for some time previous, they had been
accustomed to administer a rite of _baptism_ or washing to those who
became proselytes to their religion, that is, who were converted from
being Gentiles.” … “John found this custom in use, and as he was calling
the Jews to a new dispensation, to a change in the form of their
religion, he administered this rite of _baptism_ or washing to signify
the cleansing from their sins, and adopting the new dispensation, or the
fitness for the pure reign of the Messiah. They applied an old ordinance
to a new purpose; as it was used by John it was a significant rite or
ceremony, intended to denote the putting away of impurity, and a purpose
to be pure in heart and life.”
Mr. Percy stopped reading, and looking up at Mr. Johnson, said, “Pardon
me, pastor, but if Mr. Barnes were present here as a witness in this
case, I would like to ask him a single question by way of a
cross-examination. He says that ‘_Washing_ or ablution was much in use
among the Jews as one of the rites of their religion,’ and yet he tells
us that _baptism_ was not in use _till after the captivity_. Must not
baptism then have been something _new_ and different from the washing or
ablution?”
“And I,” said Theodosia, “would like to ask a question too; perhaps
pastor Johnson can answer it as well as Mr. Barnes. He says, when they
received a convert from the Gentiles, they _baptized_ him; John found
this rite in use, and merely applied an old ordinance to a new purpose.
Now, I want to know how this ordinance was administered. _What was the
act_ which they performed upon the proselyte? Did they sprinkle him, or
pour upon him, or was he immersed? If this can be ascertained, it will
of course determine what it was that John did when he baptized. Can you
tell us, Mr. Johnson, which it was?”
“Yes, my child; it was universally conceded that the Jewish proselyte
baptism was immersion. I do not know that this has ever been denied by
any writer on either side of the controversy. It is distinctly stated to
have been immersion by Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. Adam Clarke, Prof. Stuart, and
others who have espoused our cause.”
“How then do you get rid of the difficulty? If, as Mr. Barnes says,
‘John applied an old ordinance to a new purpose,’ and that old ordinance
was immersion, it is absolutely certain that John was immersed. There is
not room for even the shadow of a doubt.”
“It would seem to be so indeed,” said the pastor. “I never thought of it
just in that light before. But though it is admitted by all that the
proselyte baptism was immersion, it is doubted by many whether it
existed at all before the time of John. Some think it originated about
the time of Christ, and that the Jews practiced it in imitation of
John’s baptism.”
“I do not see,” rejoined Mr. Percy, “how it can make the slightest
difference in the result of the argument, whether it was in use before
the time of John, or was borrowed from him. If they immersed _before_
the time of John, and he borrowed his rite from them, of course it was
immersion that he borrowed. If they immersed _after_ the time of John,
and borrowed their rite from him, of course John immersed, or they could
not have borrowed immersion from him.”
“But if John immersed,” said Theodosia, “then _Jesus was immersed by
John_. This immersion was called his baptism. The disciples saw it, and
spake of it as such; and ever afterward, whenever baptism was mentioned,
their minds would revert to this act; and so, when Jesus said to them,
‘Go and baptize,’ they must have understood him to mean, that they
should go and repeat on others the rite which they had seen performed on
him. And not only so,” added the young lady, “but Christ’s disciples had
themselves been accustomed to practice the same baptism under his own
eye. If John immersed, they had not only witnessed his immersion of
Jesus, but they had themselves immersed hundreds, if not thousands,
under the personal direction of Jesus himself.”
“That would certainly settle the question. But where did you make that
discovery?” asked Mr. Percy, incredulously.
“Oh, it is in the record,” she replied. “Here is the testimony, John
iii. 22, 23: ‘After these things, came Jesus and his disciples into the
land of Judea, and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John
also was baptizing in Ænon, near to Salim, because there was much water
there; and they came, and were baptized.’ And in the next chapter it
says that the ‘Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more
disciples than John.’ Now John baptized and Jesus baptized. They both
did the same thing; that is as plain as words can make it: as plain as
though it said Jesus walked, and John also walked; or Jesus talked, and
John also talked. Whatever it was that John did, Jesus was doing the
same thing. “If John’s baptism was immersion, then Jesus and his
disciples were immersing, and they immersed more than John.”
“That is really,” said Mr. Percy, “a complete demonstration. Don’t you
think so, Mr. Johnson?”
“Well, I must confess it looks so at the first glance. We must look into
this matter another time. Let us, for the present, see what Mr. Barnes
says further. Please read on, Mr. Percy; I have not much more time to
spare this evening.”
Mr. Percy read on:
“The Hebrew word (_tabal_) which is rendered by the [Greek] word
baptize, occurs in the Old Testament in the following places:—Lev. iv.
6; xiv. 6, 51; Num. xix. 18; Ruth ii. 14; Ex. xii. 22; Deut. xxxiii. 24;
Ezk. xxiii. 15; Job ix. 31; Lev. ix. 9; 1 Sam. ix. 27; 2 Kings v. 14;
viii. 15; Gen. xxxvii. 31; Joshua iii. 15. It occurs in no other places;
and from a careful examination of these passages, its meaning among the
Jews is to be derived.”
“Oh,” said the young lady, “that is what I like; I like to find the
meaning in the Scriptures, then I know I can rely upon it. Just wait a
minute, Mr. Percy, if you please, till I can get my Bible and hunt out
those place, and see how it reads. If it reads sprinkle, then it is all
right—sprinkling is baptism; if it reads pour, then pouring is baptism;
if it reads dip, then dipping is baptism. We will soon see.”
“Let me read a little further, Miss Theodosia, and perhaps you may not
think it necessary to examine the texts.”
She had, however, got her Bible, and was getting ready to turn to each
text in order, when he resumed as follows:
“From these passages, it will be seen that its radical meaning is not to
sprinkle or to immerse. _It is to dip_. Commonly for the purpose of
sprinkling or for some other purpose.”
“What? Do let me see that. Pardon me, pastor, but what does the good man
mean? It is not to sprinkle; it is not to immerse; _it is to dip!_
Edwin, please get Webster’s Dictionary, and tell us the difference
between the meaning of dip and immerse.”
“Here it is. Immerse is to plunge into a fluid. Dip is to plunge any
thing into a fluid, and instantly take it out again.”
“Why, Mr. Percy, that just describes the act of baptism which we saw at
the river. It was not an immersion, strictly speaking, but a dipping, a
plunging beneath the water, and a raising out again. ‘It is not to
sprinkle or to immerse; it is to dip! Commonly for the purpose of
sprinkling, or for some other purpose.’”
“What are you laughing at, brother Edwin?”
“I was only thinking how a preacher would look, dipping a man ‘for the
purpose of sprinkling’ him. But see! there goes my teacher, and I
believe he is a Baptist. At any rate he goes to all their meetings. Let
me call him in; he can tell us something more about these things.”
And before any one could interfere, he had run to the door and hailed
Mr. Courtney.
Seeing this, the Rev. Mr. Johnson arose, and reminding the company that
he had an engagement at that hour, promised to call again and talk over
the matter more, at another day, and took his leave, passing out just as
the teacher was coming in.
“Mr. Courtney,” said Mr. Percy, “perhaps you can help us a little. We
were just looking at Barnes on Baptism.”
“I did not know he had ever written on the subject, except some very
singular remarks he made in his Notes on the third chapter of Matthew.”
“It was those we were examining, and I infer that you do not think very
favorably of his argument.”
“I think he makes a very strong argument for the Baptists.”
“How so?”
“Simply thus: It is an axiom in logic as well as in mathematics, ‘that
things which are equal to the same thing, are equal to one another.’ Now
he states a very remarkable and exceedingly significant fact, when he
says that the Hebrew word _tabal_ is rendered by the word _baptize_. It
occurs, he says, fifteen times in the Hebrew Bible. Now when the Jews
translated their Scriptures into Greek, whenever they came to this word,
they rendered it _baptize_; and when our translators came to this same
word, they rendered it by the English word _dip_. It follows, therefore,
since dip in English and baptize in Greek are both equivalent to _tabal_
in Hebrew, they must be equivalent to each other.
“Mr. Barnes says further, that the true way to ascertain the meaning of
this word among the Jews, is to examine carefully the fifteen places
where it occurs in the Old Testament. I see, Miss Ernest, that you have
the Bible in your hand; suppose you turn to those places, and let us see
how they read. It will not take more than a few minutes of our time.”
“I had gotten the book for that very purpose, sir. I like this way of
study, comparing Scripture with Scripture. I always feel better
satisfied with my conclusions when I have drawn them for myself directly
from the Bible.”
“Well, here is the first place, Leviticus iv. 6: ‘And the priest shall
_dip_ his finger in the blood.’
“The second, Leviticus xiv. 6: ‘And shall _dip_ them into the blood of
the bird that was killed over running water.’
“The third, Leviticus xiv. 51: ‘And _dip_ them in the blood of the slain
bird and in the running water.’
“The fourth, Numbers xix. 18: ‘And a clean person shall take hyssop, and
_dip_ it into the water.’
“The fifth, Ruth ii. 14: ‘And Boaz said unto her at meal time, come thou
hither, and eat of the bread, and _dip_ thy morsel in the vinegar.’
[Illustration: Conversation around the Ernest table.]
“The sixth, Exodus xii. 22: ‘And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and
_dip_ it in the blood.’
“The seventh, Deuteronomy xxxiii. 24: ‘And let him _dip_ his foot in
oil.’
“The eighth, Ezekiel xxiii. 15: ‘Exceeding in dyed attire.’
“The ninth, Job ix. 31: ‘Yet shalt thou _plunge_ me in the ditch.’
“The tenth, Leviticus ix. 9: ‘And he _dipped_ his finger in the blood.’
“The eleventh, 1 Samuel xiv. 27: ‘And he (Jonathan) put forth the end of
the rod that was in his hand, and _dipped_ it in the honey comb.’
“The twelfth, 2 Kings viii. 16: ‘And he (Hazael) took a thick cloth, and
_dipped_ it in the water, and spread it on his face.’
“The thirteenth, Joshua iii. 15: ‘The feet of the priests that bare the
ark were _dipped_ in the brim of Jordan.’
“The fourteenth, 2 Kings v. 14: ‘And he went down and _dipped_ himself
seven times in Jordan.’
“The fifteenth, Genesis xxxvii. 31: ‘And they took Joseph’s coat, and
killed a kid, and _dipped_ the coat in the blood.’
“The passage in the 2 Kings v. 14, is very remarkable, since it
corresponds precisely in the Septuagint to the text in Matthew. The
Septuagint says of Naaman, _Ebaptizato en to Jordane_. Matthew says of
the people baptized by John, _Ebaptisonto en to Jordane_. Nobody has
ever questioned the correctness of the translation in Kings. He _dipped_
himself in Jordan; and had Matthew been translated by the same rule, it
must have read, they were _dipped_ by John in Jordan.
“But I fear this subject may be disagreeable to you. Mr. Barnes, I know,
is a most eminent minister of your own denomination, and I ought
probably to have avoided speaking thus in your presence.”
“Oh, no, sir,” said the young lady; “I want to learn the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, on this subject. I am glad to
learn it from any source, and in any way. Perhaps you can assist us
further; but let us see what further Mr. Barnes has to say.”
Mr. Percy read again:
“In none of these cases can it be shown that the meaning of the word is
to _immerse entirely_. But in nearly all the cases the notion of
applying the water to a part only of the person or object, though it was
by dipping, is necessarily supposed.… It cannot be proved, from an
examination of the passages in the Old and New Testaments, that the idea
of a complete immersion ever was connected with the word, or that it
_ever in any case occurred_.”
“Stop, Mr. Percy,” said the young lady. “Pray stop, and let me think a
moment. Can it be possible that a good man, a pious minister of Jesus
Christ, could dare to trifle thus with the holy Word of God? Oh, it is
wonderful! I cannot understand it! He said just now, that the meaning of
the word ‘was to dip for the purpose of sprinkling, or for some other
purpose.’ To dip means to plunge any thing into a fluid, and immediately
take it out again. To immerse means merely to plunge the object in the
fluid. Whatever is dipped, therefore, is of _necessity_ immersed, to the
same extent that it is dipped; and yet he says these things which the
Word says were dipped, were none of them entirely immersed.”
“Do not think too hardly of him,” said Mr. Percy. “An advocate who has a
bad cause to sustain (I know from experience), is sometimes obliged to
resort to just such a jumble, to cover the weak points of his argument.”
“Perhaps,” said Theodosia, “it might be excusable in a lawyer, though
even of that I am doubtful; but that a minister of the holy Word of
Jesus should thus stoop to ‘darken counsel with words without
knowledge,’ is something I never conceived of till now.”
“When you have become more familiar with the influence which passion and
prejudice, and especially early education and church attachments, exert
upon the minds of even the wisest and best of men,” said Mr. Courtney,
“these things will not appear so strange to you. Mr. Barnes doubtless
believes that sprinkling is baptism. He was taught so in early life, and
has for many years taught others so. To convince him of the contrary,
would now be almost or quite impossible, and when any text of Scripture
comes in opposition to this opinion, he can hardly help perverting or
misunderstanding it. You desired to know the true meaning of the word
baptize, as it was used in our Saviour’s time among the Jews; and you
applied to him for information. He told you very properly that you must
go to those places where it occurs in the original of their own
Scriptures, and pointed out to you the fifteen places, which he assures
you are the only places in which it occurs. He has thus given the matter
into your own hands. You turn to the places, one by one, and find that
in fourteen out of the fifteen it clearly means to _dip_. That such is
the case, he does not deny. He is obliged to grant that ‘its radical
meaning is to _dip_.’ This, now, he has proved from the Scriptures
themselves. But this overthrows his sprinkling, so he must get rid of
its force. This he undertakes to do—1. By intimating that there is some
important difference between dipping and immersion. ‘It is not
sprinkling nor immersion,’ he says; ‘it is dipping.’ And then he tries
to confuse the matter by mixing in the object, ‘for the purpose of
sprinkling, or for some other purpose,’ as though the purpose modified
the act performed. The baptism mentioned in these fourteen places was
equally dipping, whether it was performed for the purpose of sprinkling,
as when the priest dipped the hyssop; or for the purpose of smearing, as
when the priest dipped the tip of his finger in oil; or for the purpose
of cleansing, as when Naaman dipped himself in Jordan; or for the
purpose of pollution, as when Job was plunged in the ditch; or merely
for the purpose of wetting, as when Ruth dipped her morsel, or Hazael
his thick cloth. The wetting, the defiling, the cleansing, the smearing,
were not the baptism; they were not the dipping, but a consequence of
it. The sprinkling was not the baptism, the dipping, but a subsequent
and altogether a different act. Then to make ‘confusion worse
confounded,’ he intimates some vast distinction between entire immersion
and dipping. These things, said to be baptized in these fourteen places,
he can’t deny were dipped; but ‘none of them,’ he says, ‘were entirely
immersed.’ But the extent of the immersion does not affect the meaning
of the word. The word immersed expressed only the act of plunging the
object into the fluid. The word dip expressed this act, and the
additional one of taking it out again; and this, he said and proved, was
the Scriptural meaning of baptize. As far, then, as they were baptized,
they were dipped; and as far as they were dipped, they were immersed. We
learn the extent of the dipping from other words, not from this one. If
Naaman is said to have dipped himself, or Hazael the cloth, there is not
the slightest reason to doubt that the whole person and the whole cloth
were immersed. If Jonathan dipped the end of his staff, why the end only
was immersed. It was immersed, however, just as much as it was dipped or
baptized.”
“But,” said Mr. Percy, “what will you do with the hyssop, and the living
bird, etc., that were to be baptized into the blood of the slain bird,
and where Mr. Barnes says it is clearly impossible that they all should
be immersed in the blood of the single bird.”
“I simply say that they could be immersed in it as easily as they could
be dipped in it. If you will turn to Leviticus xiv. 6, you will see that
the blood of the slain bird was to be caught over running water; and as
it rested on, or mixed with the water, these things could all be
entirely immersed, if need be. You will remember, however, that in
common language the whole of a thing is often mentioned when a part is
only meant. I say, for instance, that I dipped my pen in ink, and wrote
a line; you do not understand that I dipped more than the point—enough
to take up the ink to write. If I tell you that I dipped my hair brush
in water, and smoothed my hair, you do not understand that I dipped it
in, handle and all, but only the bristles. So only enough of the cedar
wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, etc., may have been dipped to take up
enough to sprinkle with; but as much as they were baptized, so much were
they dipped; and so far as they were dipped, just so far were they
immersed. But it does not make any difference to Mr. Barnes or his
sprinkling brethren, whether the dipping was partial or complete; for
they do not dip their subjects of baptism at all, in whole or in part,
for the purpose of sprinkling, or for any other purpose; and, therefore,
if the Scriptural meaning of the word baptize is to dip, as Mr. Barnes
has so clearly proved by Scripture itself, then they do not baptize at
all.”
“Oh, yes, I see now how it was,” said Theodosia, “when Dr. Fisher
performed this ceremony upon me. He baptized his own hand; for he dipped
that in the bowl, but he only sprinkled me; and therefore, according to
the showing of Mr. Barnes himself, I have never been baptized.”
“Do not put down the book yet,” said Mr. Courtney. “Just turn to Matthew
xx. 22, and you will find that Mr. Barnes has no more difficulty than
the greatest Baptist in the land, in understanding the word baptism to
signify not only immersion, but _complete_ immersion, whenever it does
not refer to the ordinance.
“The baptism that I am baptized with.” On this Mr. B. remarks as
follows: ‘Are ye able to suffer with me the trials and pains which shall
come upon you in endeavoring to build up my kingdom? Are ye able to be
plunged deep in afflictions? to have sorrows cover you like water, and
to be sunk beneath calamities as floods, in the work of religion?
Afflictions are often expressed by being sunk in the floods and plunged
in the deep waters.’ (Ps. lix. 2; Isa. xliii. 2; Ps. cxxiv. 4, 5; Sam.
iii. 54.)
“You see Mr. Barnes has no more difficulty than the translators of the
Old Testament, in giving the word its true meaning—to dip, to plunge, to
sink beneath the waters, etc., when it does not refer to the ordinance;
but when it does, all is confusion and mystery.”
“I begin to think,” said Theodosia, “that theological writers are not to
be relied upon at all. And I feel more than ever inclined to trust to
the Bible alone, and study it for myself. When such a man as Mr. Barnes
can be so far blinded by education and prejudice as to come so near the
truth and not see it—to point out the way toward it so plainly, and yet
refuse to walk in it, and endeavor to hide it from others by such a
strange medley of words, I have no further use for any book on the
subject but the word of God. I will study that; and it shall be my only
guide. If I find that Jesus was sprinkled in Jordan, I will be content.
If I find that he was poured upon, I must be poured upon. If I find that
he was dipped, then I must be dipped.”
“Oh, no, Miss Theodosia; you are decidedly too hasty. I have often found
in court, that a witness whom I expected to testify in my favor, and who
evidently desired and intended to do so, has nevertheless, on a
cross-examination, given such testimony as was altogether favorable to
the opposite party. But I did not abandon my client, and give up my
suit. I sought for other witnesses. Our information on this subject is,
as yet, very limited. There are other sources of evidence; let us
examine them. Something may yet turn up to change your opinion of
theological writers. Did you not say you had McKnight on the Epistles in
the house?”
“Yes; and uncle Jones, who you know is one of the Elders in our church,
says it is one of the best, if not the very best of commentaries.”
“Well, let us see what he says. How will we find the place?”
“Take a concordance,” suggested Edwin, “and look at every place where
the word baptize occurs.”
“That is a first-rate idea. Well, here is the first place. Romans vi. 4.
Buried with Christ by baptism. In the note he says: ‘Christ’s baptism
was not the baptism of repentance, for he never committed any sin. But
he submitted to be baptized—that is, to be buried under the water by
John, and to be raised out again—as an emblem of his future death and
resurrection. In like manner, the baptism of believers is emblematical
of their own death, burial, and resurrection; perhaps, also, it is a
commemoration of Christ’s baptism.’”
“Stop, Mr. Percy, are you sure you are not reading falsely?”
“Yes, I am perfectly certain. Here is the book, you can see for
yourself.”
“No; but I thought you must be playing some trick on me. At any rate,
McKnight must have been a Baptist. No one who believed in, and practiced
sprinkling, could have written in that way.”
“Perhaps he was a Baptist. Let us look at the title page and preface,
and see who and what he was. It appears from this, that James McKnight,
D.D., was born Sept. 17, 1721. Licensed to preach by the Presbytery of
Irwine of the Scotch Presbyterian church. Ordained at Maybole in 1753.
Chosen Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in
1769, which position he held for more than twenty years. This brief
history of his life, prefixed to the first volume of his Notes, informs
us further, that he spent near thirty years of his life in preparing
these Notes, and ‘that the whole manuscript was written over and over,
by his own hand, no less than five times.’ They were therefore the
deliberate and carefully expressed opinions of a most eminent and very
learned Presbyterian Doctor of Divinity, and presiding officer of the
Presbyterian church in the country where he lived. Of course he cannot
be suspected of any bias toward the obscure and despised sect called the
Baptists.”
“Well, read on then. Theologians are mysterious men.”
“That is all he says on this verse. But here is verse 5th. ‘Planted
together,’ etc.
“‘The burying of Christ and of believers, first in the water of baptism,
and afterward in the earth, is fitly enough compared to the planting of
seeds in the earth, because the effect in both cases is a reviviscence
to a state of greater perfection.’”
“Surely, he must consider baptism to be a burial in water. But perhaps
he thinks there were several baptisms, and that dipping was one form or
mode, while sprinkling was another.”
“No, for here is his note on Ephesians iv. 5. One Lord, one Faith, one
Baptism.
“‘Ye all,’ says he, ‘serve one Lord, and all have the same object of
faith, and have all professed that faith by the same form of baptism.’”
“Has he any thing else on the subject?”
“Yes, here, on 1 Cor. x. 2, ‘And were all baptized unto Moses in the
cloud and in the sea.’
“‘Because the Israelites, by being hidden from the Egyptians under the
cloud, and by passing through the Red Sea, were made to declare their
belief in the Lord and his servant Moses, the Apostle very properly
represents them as baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.’
“And here again—1 Cor. xv. 29—‘Else what shall they do who are baptized
for the dead.’
“‘Otherwise what shall they do to repair their loss who are immersed in
sufferings for the resurrection of the dead.’
“And here again—Heb. ix. 10—‘Divers washings (_Baptismos_).’
“‘With nothing but meats, and drinks, and divers _immersions_, and
ordinances respecting the body.’
“One more place, and we have all that he says upon the subject.
“1 Peter iii. 21, ‘The like figure whereunto baptism doth now save us,
etc.’
“The water of baptism is here called the anti-type of the water of the
flood, because the flood was a type or emblem of baptism in three
particulars:
“1. ‘As by building an ark and entering into it, Noah showed strong
faith in the promise of God, concerning his preservation, by the very
water which was to destroy the Antediluvians for their sins. So by
giving ourselves to be buried in the water of baptism, we show a like
faith in God’s promise, that though we die and are buried, he will save
us from death and the punishment of sin, by raising us up from the dead
at the last day.’
“2. ‘As the preserving of Noah alive during the nine months of the
flood, is an emblem of the preservation of the souls of believers while
in the state of the dead, so the preserving believers alive while buried
in the water of baptism, is a prefiguration of the same event.’
“3. ‘As the water of the deluge destroyed the wicked, but preserved Noah
by bearing up the ark, in which he was shut up, till the waters were
assuaged, and he went out to live again upon the earth; so baptism may
be said to destroy [or represent the destruction of] the wicked, and to
save the righteous, as it prefigures both these events. The death of the
wicked it prefigures by the burial of the baptized person in the water,
and the salvation of the righteous by the raising of the baptized person
out of the water.’”
“Well, Mr. Percy,” said Theodosia, “what do you make of this witness? Do
you wish to cross-examine him, or ask him any further questions?”
“Yes, I would like to ask the Rev. Dr. McKnight if he practiced
sprinkling for baptism; and if he did, upon what grounds he could
sustain a practice so different from his own exposition of the teachings
of the Scripture.”
“As Dr. McKnight has not answered in his writings, and is not present in
person, it may be satisfactory,” suggested Mr. Courtney, “to inquire of
some other representative of the same church establishment. If you have
Dr. Chalmers’ Lectures on Romans, you will find the question answered.”
“Yes, sister, don’t you know mother bought Chalmers’ Lectures only the
other day? I will go and get the book,” said Edwin.
“Ah, here it is—page 152; Romans vi. 4–7. ‘The original meaning of the
_word baptism_, is _immersion_; and, though we regard it as a point of
indifferency whether the ordinance so named be performed in this way or
by sprinkling, yet we doubt not that the prevalent style of the
administration, in the apostle’s days, was by the actual submerging of
the whole body under water. We advert to this for the purpose of
throwing light on the analogy which is instituted in these verses. Jesus
Christ, by death, underwent this sort of baptism, even immersion under
the surface of the ground, whence he soon emerged again by his
resurrection. We, by being baptized into his death, are conceived to
have made a similar translation—in the act of descending under the water
of baptism, to have resigned an old life; and in the act of ascending,
to emerge into a second or new life.’ Here we have a distinct avowal of
the well-established fact that the meaning of the word baptism is
immersion, and that the practice of the Apostolic church was conformable
to this truth. But in the very face of it we have the candid declaration
‘that we (Presbyterians) regard it as a matter of indifferency whether
the ordinance so named be performed in this way or by sprinkling.’”
“But, Mr. Courtney, how can it be a matter of ‘indifferency?’ If the
word means immersion, then immersion was what Christ commanded—then the
‘ordinance so-called’ is ‘immersion.’ How can immersion be performed by
sprinkling? Really, these theologians are a strange, mysterious people.
I cannot comprehend them. Christ commands me to be baptized—baptism
means immersion—then, of course, if he meant any thing, he meant
immersion. But these great and good men tell me it is a matter of
‘indifferency’ whether I do what he commanded, or something else
altogether different from it.”
“Pardon me, Miss Theodosia; it is only when the theologians are in
error, and blinded by their educational prejudices, or attachment to
their church forms and dogmas, that they are so unreasonable and so
mysterious.”
“Yet I have been accustomed to think they could hardly be in error at
all. I have taken it for granted, until yesterday, that what the
ministers of our church said about the teachings of the word of God, was
all true, as a matter of course. I can hardly believe now that it is not
so. I can’t understand how those, who are so wise, so learned, so pious,
so anxious to know the truth, and who spend all their time in learning
and teaching it, can be wrong; or how a simple girl like me, may differ
from them and yet be right. I am afraid to take a single step in
opposition to my pastor’s teaching, though I see clearly (as I think)
that I shall step upon the rock of God’s unfailing truth! How can it be,
that such good men talk one way and act another? How do they try to
justify their ‘indifferency’ to the commands of Christ? They give some
reason, do they not?”
“I think most of them don’t trouble themselves on the subject: they
think little, and care little about it—not deeming it essential to
salvation. When they do think or read upon the subject, it is in order
to quiet their minds, or reply to an opponent. They have the practice of
their church, received by tradition; they take it for granted it is
right. They are where you were a day or two since, when you took it for
granted that the ministers of your denomination could not be wrong. They
don’t think _their church_ can be wrong; and they twist, pervert, and
torture the Scriptures, as you have seen Mr. Barnes do, or openly set
aside their teachings as a matter of ‘indifferency,’ as we have seen Dr.
Chalmers do, in order to continue _the usage of the church_.”
“But,” asked Theodosia, “does not Dr. Chalmers stand alone upon this
point of ‘indifferency?’ It surely is not common for the ministers of
our church (who in learning and piety I have always thought had no
superiors in the world) to speak of literal obedience to Christ’s
commandments as a matter of no consequence. To me it seems to border
upon absolute impiety, almost upon sacrilege. I am in a maze of
astonishment.”
“If you will continue your investigations for a little time, you will
cease to be astonished at almost any sort of assertions made by the
advocates of sprinkling,” said Mr. Courtney. “You will, for instance,
find them admitting, in one sentence, that immersion was submitted to by
Christ, and practiced by the Apostles; and in another, holding it up to
the reprobation and abhorrence of every Christian as an indecent and
abominable rite. But, in regard to your question. Dr. Chalmers, so far
from standing alone, simply echoes the sentiments of Calvin, the founder
of your church, and others of its most eminent supporters. ‘It is of no
consequence at all,’ says Calvin, as quoted by Prof. Stuart, ‘whether
the baptized person is totally immersed, or whether he is merely
sprinkled by an affusion of water. This should be a matter of choice to
the churches in different regions, although the word baptize signifies
to immerse, and the rite of immersion was practiced by the ancient
church.’ ‘To this opinion,’ says Prof. Stuart, ‘I do most fully and
heartily subscribe.’”
“Well, I declare! these Presbyterian Doctors of Divinity are the most
mysterious of people to me. They freely admit that the meaning of the
word is to immerse, or to dip, and that immersion was practiced by the
first churches—(and of course, if such is the meaning of the word, it
must have been practiced by the first churches, as they could not
misunderstand the commandment). Yet they tell us that it is of ‘no
consequence at all’ whether we obey the commandment or not. Do the other
denominations opposed to the Baptist occupy the same position?”
“I cannot answer for all,” said Mr. Courtney; “I can for some. I have
here a transcript of some of the writings of Mr. John Wesley, who was
the founder of the Methodists, the most numerous of the Pedobaptist
sects in this country. He says, in his notes on Romans vi. 4—‘The
allusion is to the ancient manner of baptizing, by immersion.’ And he
relates in his journal, vol. 3, page 20, ‘that Mary Welch, aged eleven
days, was baptized according to the custom of the first church, and the
rule of the church of England, by immersion.’
“On page 24 of the same volume, he says—‘I was asked to baptize a child
of Mr. Parker’s, second bailiff of Savannah; but Mrs. Parker told me,
neither Mr. P. nor I will consent to its being dipped. I answered, if
you certify that the child is weakly, it will suffice (the Rubric says)
to pour water on it. She replied nay, the child is not weak, but I am
resolved it shall not be dipped. This argument I could not confute, so I
went home, and the child was baptized by another.’”
“It would seem, then,” said Theodosia, “that Mr. Wesley conformed his
practice to his belief. He believed that baptism was immersion, and
refused to baptize at all unless he could do it according to the word of
God. I honor the man for his consistency.”
“Still,” said Mr. Percy, “it does not seem that he was influenced by the
word of God, but by the ‘Rubric.’ The word of God makes no exception in
favor of those who may be certified to ‘be weak,’ but yet on the
authority of ‘the Rubric,’ or formula of the church of England, Mr.
Wesley was perfectly ready to dispense with the dipping, and employ
pouring, if the parents _would only certify_.”
“Moreover,” added Mr. Courtney, “it seems, from his conduct afterward,
that he felt as much at liberty himself to change the ordinance of
Christ, as the makers of the Rubric had done; for when he organized his
societies, and gave them ‘the Discipline’ as their organic law, he
directed baptism to be performed by sprinkling or pouring, if the
parties preferred it.
“And though Mr. Wesley once refused to baptize a person at all unless he
could do it by dipping, ‘according to the custom of the first church,’
or under a certificate of weakness, his followers, by his direction and
by authority of his Discipline, employ sprinkling almost exclusively,
and call immersion a vulgar and indecent practice; although they will
sometimes perform it to satisfy a weak conscience, rather than lose a
member.
“Martin Luther, the great reformer and founder of the Lutheran church,
evidently entertained the same opinion with the other noted Pedobaptists
we have been speaking of. After speaking of baptism as a symbol of death
and resurrection, he says, ‘On this account I could wish that such as
are to be baptized, should be completely immersed into the water,
according to the meaning of the word and the signification of the
ordinance, as also, without doubt, it was instituted by Christ.’ Yet
Luther is the father of a sprinkling church—the Lutheran; and whether he
did so or not, it is evident that his followers, like Drs. Chalmers and
Calvin, regard it as a ‘point of indifferency.’”
“That is sufficient, Mr. Courtney,” replied the young lady; “I merely
wish to know if the other denominations were guilty of the same
inconsistency with our own.”
After a little further conversation, Mr. Percy and Mr. Courtney took
their leave.
Mrs. Ernest, the mother, had, during the time of this interview, been
sitting quietly in a corner, very busily engaged in hemming some
ruffles. She took no part in the discussion, but as soon as the
gentlemen were gone, she turned to Theodosia, and said—
“My dear child, I am perfectly astonished at your behavior this
evening.”
“Why, mother,” said the young lady, in amazement, “what have I done? I
am not conscious of any impropriety.”
“Do you think, then, that it is perfectly proper and becoming in you to
talk as you did this evening about the good and eminent clergymen of our
church? It made my flesh quake and my heart burn to hear that
impertinent little Baptist pedagogue accuse such a man as Dr. Albert
Barnes of perverting the scriptures and mystifying the truth. I wonder
if he thinks a learned and pious Presbyterian minister, like Mr. Barnes,
is more likely to be ‘blinded by prejudice and passion’ than an ignorant
Baptist schoolmaster. You thought I was not listening; but, though I did
not take any part in your conversation, I assure you I heard every word
of it, and if it had not been for the presence of Mr. Percy, I do
believe I would have been tempted to order the fellow out of my house.
How could you be so destitute of every particle of self-respect, and of
all regard for your own church—the church of your mother and your grand
parents, in which you was born and raised, as to permit a man to talk in
that way in your presence? I declare I was perfectly ashamed of you! If
that Mr. Courtney ever shows his face in my house again, I do think I
shall insult him.”
“Mother, what was it that Mr. Courtney said that was so unbecoming and
offensive? I am sure he seemed to me only as one anxious to get at the
truth.”
“Why! did he not say that our preachers perverted the Scripture? Did not
he say that they set aside the commandments of Christ as matters of
‘indifferency?’ I wonder if he thinks he knows more about the Scriptures
than Dr. Chalmers or Mr. Barnes, or even the weakest preacher in our
church? I always heard that the Baptists were an ignorant, bigoted, and
intolerant sect, and I believe it now more than ever. Just to think
that—”
“But, mother, please let me say one word. Mr. Courtney did, indeed,
intimate that Mr. Barnes had mystified and perverted the Scripture, but
did he not prove it before he said it? It was Mr. Percy who read in Mr.
Barnes’ notes that we must look in the Old Testament at those fifteen
places, to learn the meaning of the word baptize. We looked, and found
that in fourteen of the fifteen, the action was dipping, and in none of
them sprinkling or pouring. It was Mr. Percy who read that ‘the meaning
of the word is not to sprinkle or to immerse, but it is to dip for the
purpose of sprinkling, or for some other purpose.’ It was Mr. Percy who
read in Dr. Chalmers that ‘we (Presbyterians) consider it a point of
indifferency’ whether the ordinance of Christ is performed as he
commanded, or in some other way. Now, if Mr. Barnes does prove that the
word means ‘to dip,’ for the purpose of sprinkling, or for some other
purpose, and yet tells us that it can be done by pouring, does he not
mystify the subject by a strange medley of words? Was it so very wrong
in Mr. Courtney to point out these self-evident prevarications of Mr.
Barnes, or the openly avowed disregard to the commandment of Jesus
Christ and the practice of the Apostolic churches in Dr. Chalmers?
“If Presbyterians are guilty of such inconsistency I am sorry for it,
and ashamed of it, but I can’t help seeing it when my attention is
directed to it; and I really do not see how it could have been becoming
in me to get angry with those who were so kind as to point it out to me.
On this subject I feel that I would be willing to learn the truth even
from an infidel or an idiot, if they could aid me.”
“It is the part of a true friend,” said the mother, “to hide a friend’s
infirmities, not to divulge and glory in them. And even if our ministers
have done and said some thoughtless and silly things, it is not for a
Presbyterian like you, to speak of them, or permit others to speak of
them so contemptuously, in your presence. If you have no spirit of
resentment, I’ll let you know that I have, and Mr. Courtney too, if he
comes here with any more of his Baptist abuse of our pious and learned
ministers.”
“But, mother, if our ministers are wrong (as being human they surely may
be) how can it be wrong to point out their errors, and guard inquirers
after truth from falling into them?”
“I don’t say,” replied the mother, “that it is wrong to point out any
trifling errors, which they may have inadvertently taught; provided it
were done in a mild, gentlemanly, courteous, and Christian manner. But
is it kind, is it courteous, is it Christian-like, to accuse a great and
good man like Mr. Barnes, of torturing, perverting, and mystifying the
Word of God, to sustain some church dogma or church practice? Do you
call that gentlemanly?”
“My dear mother, please don’t be so angry with me; I really can’t see
why we should not call things by their real names. And I must confess
that so far as I can understand the meaning of the words, Mr. Barnes
does, on this subject, mystify and pervert the language of Scripture,
and Dr. Chalmers does clearly intimate that it is no matter whether we
do what Christ commanded in this ordinance, or something else—which he
did not command. And I begin to fear that others on our side of this
controversy are in the same predicament. Whether those on the other side
are not equally inconsistent, I have yet to learn.”
“Well, my child, I don’t know what to do with you. You have no more
respect for the opinions of the learned and excellent ministers of our
church, than for those of the most ignorant people.”
“I am determined, mother, that I shall never trust any more to the mere
assertions of any man, or set of men, except those holy men who spake as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Whatever I can find for myself
clearly put down in The Book, that I will believe. Henceforth, the Bible
is my only guide, and I will myself judge of its meaning for myself.”
“But, my child, do you, can you, think that you are as competent to
judge of the true interpretation of the Word as the great and good men
who have given all their lives to its study?”
“No, mother; but how if these great and good men disagree? Must I turn
Catholic, and so secure an _infallible priest_? If I don’t do this, I
must maintain my right to my own private judgment. I am accountable only
to God; I will be guided only by his Word. I thought you and pastor
Johnson would have encouraged and assisted me in the investigation of
this or any other question connected with my religious faith and
practice. I know that he has always told us to examine the Scripture for
ourselves—and ‘each to be fully persuaded in his own mind.’”
“Certainly, my child; but then we thought that your investigations would
tend to confirm rather than shake your faith in our doctrines; but you
seem to be losing confidence rather than increasing it. These studies
seem only to disturb and unsettle your mind; and I fear, if you continue
them, they will end in your separation from us all. How, then, can I
help desiring that you should leave off these distressing
investigations? Till you do so, I can hardly feel that you are my own
dear Theodosia. You begin almost to feel like a stranger to me now. I
declare, I believe you will break my heart.” And, overcome by her
maternal feelings, she burst into a flood of tears, in which the
daughter freely joined.
THE THIRD NIGHT’S STUDY.
Which contains the testimony of the pastor’s witnesses, to prove that
John did not immerse at all, and that Christ did not go down into the
water, but was baptized by sprinkling on the bank of the river.
Third Night’s Study.
The Rev. Mr. Johnson had been the pastor of a large and wealthy
congregation for more than, twenty years. Most of the young people of
his charge had grown up under his pastoral supervision, and old and
young had been accustomed to regard his word as Gospel truth; and when
Miss Ernest ventured to suggest that she had never been baptized, and
asked him for the proof, it was probably the first time that one of the
“baptized children of his church” had ever expressed in his presence any
serious doubt of the full authority of his bare and unsupported word.
After the brief visit at Mrs. Ernest’s which we have recorded, he went
to his study and commenced the preparation of a sermon, which he hoped
and intended should prevent any others of his congregation from any
attempt to investigate this subject for themselves.
He did not propose in this discourse to mention the Baptists by name, or
to make any attempt to refute, or even to denounce their opinions or
practices. (To do so might direct attention to them, whereas he desired
to divert it from them.) But he determined to describe, and denounce as
degenerate and vile apostates, all those who, reckless of the
obligations which had been placed upon them in early infancy, and all
the thousand nameless ties which had, in childhood and youth, bound them
to the church in which they had been born, and solemnly dedicated to God
in baptism, in whose doctrines they had been instructed by parental
lips, and into whose communion they had been received by a public
profession of their faith, and who should, after all, be induced by some
new coming proselyter to abandon the faith of their fathers, and the
communion of their own church, and break off like wandering stars, to be
lost in the darkness of anti-Presbyterian errors.
This course, he was confident, would be more effectual in preserving the
peace and unity of his church, and the dignity of its pastor, than any
attempt to reason about the doctrines of this obscure sect of Baptists,
who had so suddenly begun to attract attention in his village. He would
overwhelm the doubters and inquirers with such a storm of public
indignation, that hereafter no one would dare to doubt; but in the
meantime it was necessary, privately, to satisfy such doubts as had
already been expressed.
When, therefore, he had arranged the heads of his discourse, he repaired
to his book-case, and took down such authorities as would refresh his
memory on the subject of baptism—especially in regard to the points of
difficulty suggested by Theodosia and Mr. Percy. The examination of
these occupied the time till in the night, and was resumed again the
next morning.
Very early the next evening, having his mind fully charged with all the
_“strong reasons”_ upon which Pedobaptists are accustomed to rest their
cause, he called on Mrs. Ernest and her daughter again.
“Well, madam,” said he, “how has our conversation the other evening
affected your daughter? I trust she has ceased to be so much distressed
about these new notions as she was.”
“Indeed, Mr. Johnson, she gets worse and worse, and I begin to think Mr.
Percy is going the same way. I am so sorry Edwin called in that little
Baptist schoolmaster. It made my heart burn to hear them talk as they
did about the good and pious ministers of our church. It seemed to me
they had no more respect for a minister of the Gospel, or even a Doctor
of Divinity, than they had for a house carpenter, or a French
dancing-master.”
“How so, Mrs Ernest? I am sure your daughter has been too well raised to
speak disrespectfully of any minister of the Gospel, or permit another
to do it in her presence.”
“That is just what I told her. I said I was ashamed of her, and—”
“But pray tell me, madam, what has happened? What was said that was so
improper?”
“Why, only to think that that little impertinent Baptist pedagogue had
the impudence to say, sir, here in my house, that our ministers
perverted the Scriptures, deluded their hearers, set aside the
ordinances of Christ, and substituted others in their place, and I don’t
know what all. I was so angry I could hardly see.”
“Is it possible! and your daughter heard all of this?”
“Yes, sir; and the worst of it is, I do fear, sir, she more than half
believes it. You can’t think how changed she is, sir! I never knew her
to have a particle of self-will before. She was always so gentle and
affectionate, and ready to yield every thing to any body; but on this
subject she is very stubborn, and declares she won’t believe a single
thing but what she can see in the Bible for herself, even though she had
it from your own lips, and all the rest of the preachers in our church.
“Oh, sir,” she continued, sobbing (for her maternal feelings had begun
to overcome her), “if you don’t do something for her she will be lost to
us all! Do try to show her _where that sprinkling is in the Bible_. If
she can see it there, she will believe it.”
Mr. Johnson was fully resolved to make her see the sprinkling, if he
could; but was not quite certain as to the _place_ where he would find
it; and before he had time to reflect much upon the subject, the young
lady came into the parlor.
She seemed for the moment sightly embarrassed, evidently from the
conviction that she had been the object of remark, but greeted her
pastor cordially and respectfully. It seemed to him, though she was
paler than before, that she had grown more beautiful in the last few
days. The unusual mental activity, the excitement of a new object of
investigation, and the calm, yet firm and solemn determination to learn
and to _do_ her whole duty, had imparted to her eye a new and intenser
light, and to her countenance a strange, unwonted brightness, as though
the spirit, stirred to its inmost depths by these new impulses, and
burning with celestial fire, shone through its covering of flesh, and
illuminated her face with almost more than mortal radiance.
Could it be possible, he asked himself, that this lovely young creature
could speak irreverently of sacred things?
Alas! how much her mother and himself had misapprehended the nature of
her feelings. Never in her life had sacred things appeared to her so
sacred. It was because those great and good men, whom she had been
accustomed from her infancy to look upon with reverence, now seemed to
her, themselves, to trifle with sacred things, that she could no longer
regard them as she had done. The Word of God; the commandments of Jesus
Christ; the ordinances of the Gospel; these were sacred things. Never so
fearfully sacred as now. And what could she think of those, who,
ministering at the altar of God, perverted and mystified his Word, to
hide the truth from those who sought for knowledge? What could she think
of those who counted the commandments of Christ, and the ordinances
which he had instituted, a _“matter of indifferency?”_ She had, indeed,
in some degree, ceased to reverence the (so-called) ministers of Christ,
who could be so false to their sacred obligations as to trifle with
God’s holy Word, in order to sustain a creed or a custom of their
church; but oh! how deep, how ardent, how unutterable was her reverence
for the Word itself! How anxious, how agonizing her desire to know what
it required her to believe and to perform.
It may be that the pastor had some suspicion of the true state of her
mind in this respect, for when he addressed her, it was with an
expression of unusual and most respectful consideration. He felt
instinctively that she was not now to be rated like a school-girl, or
convinced by unsustained assertions.
Indeed, he felt a strange restraint in the presence of the
earnest-hearted, strong-minded girl; and was revolving in his mind how
he could best introduce the subject which he came to talk of, when she
relieved him by introducing it herself.
“You did not have time the other evening,” said she, “to finish your
remarks on the subject of baptism. You told me, you will recollect, that
there was good and sufficient evidence to show that our Saviour was not
baptized in the river at all, and that he was baptized by sprinkling,
and, of course, if this was so, sprinkling is the Christian baptism.”
“You state the case a little too strongly, my daughter; I meant to say
only that there is no evidence that he was baptized in the river; and
that the baptism which he commanded (the baptism of the Gospel
dispensation) was performed by sprinkling.”
“Please, Mr. Johnson, don’t try to mystify me. Do you mean to say that
the baptism which Christ submitted to, and the baptism which he
commanded, were two different things, and that one was immersion, and
the other sprinkling?”
“Not exactly, my daughter; I only meant to say they might be different.
John’s baptism was not Christian baptism. It was the baptism of
repentance, designed to introduce Christianity. It prepared the way for
the Gospel, but was itself no part of the Gospel dispensation.”
“And yet, Mr. Johnson, Mark says it was ‘the beginning of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ.’ But it does not make any difference to me whether it was
Christian baptism or not. I simply want to know about the act performed.
John did something, which is called baptism. Multitudes came to him, and
were baptized by him in the river of Jordan. Jesus also came to him, and
was baptized in the river of Jordan. Then Jesus went himself into Judea,
and there he tarried and baptized; and at the same time John also was
baptizing in Ænon, near Salim; and Jesus baptized more than John
baptized. These baptisms were confined to the Jews; but after his death,
Jesus told the disciples to go and preach his Gospel to all _other_
nations, and baptize them; and we learn from the Acts that they who
gladly received the Word were baptized, both Jews and Gentiles.
“Now, what I want to know is this: when John baptized, he performed a
certain act. When Jesus and his disciples baptized, did they not perform
the same act? and when he commanded to baptize the Gentiles also, did he
not command the same act to be performed, and did not the disciples
perform the same act, in obedience to that command? The same word is
used, does it not mean the same thing?”
“If it does, my child, it must mean something else besides immersion,
for in many of these cases of baptism, immersion was out of the
question. In fact, it is very certain that John did not immerse those
whom he baptized; though if he had, it would not follow that Christ
commanded immersion. John may have done one thing, and Christ may have
commanded something else.”
“Very true, Mr. Johnson; he may have done it, but where is the proof
that he did? My name might have been Susan, but then I would not have
been called Theodosia. If he had meant another act, he would have used a
different word.”
“Not if the word might mean either one or the other. You know that we
contend that the word baptize means to sprinkle, to pour, to wet, to
wash,[1] as truly as it means to dip or to immerse.”
“Well, Mr. Johnson, even supposing it does have all these meanings, the
disciples must have understood the Saviour to use it (when speaking in
reference to his ordinance) in some one of them, and that one would be
fixed by his own example. What he received as baptism from John in
Jordan, they would ever after consider to be baptism; and would
necessarily suppose he meant that act when he used the word, even though
it had a hundred meanings. But if you will pardon me for being so
troublesome, I would like to know what proof there is that baptize in
the Greek language has all these various meanings? We looked into a
Greek Lexicon the other day to find the meaning of the word, and we
could not find any thing at all about sprinkling or pouring among the
definitions there.”
“_You_ looked in a Greek Lexicon. You can’t read Greek, can you?”
“No, sir; but brother Edwin is studying the language, and he found the
word, and I could read the definition.”
“And so you think you and Edwin are competent critics of a disputed
point in the Greek language?”
“Oh, no! Mr. Johnson, don’t laugh at me. If you knew how anxious I am to
learn the truth, I am sure you would sympathize with me and assist me.
We did not think we knew any thing about it, and that is the reason that
we went to the Lexicon to learn. It is not Edward’s opinion that I
referred to, but that of the learned Prof. Donegan. And Mr. Percy has
since examined quite a number of other Greek scholars upon the same
subject, and he has not found that any one of them gives sprinkling as
one of the meanings of baptize, though all agree in dipping.”
“And so you, and Edwin, and Mr. Percy set yourselves up to teach such
men as Dr. Miller and other learned theological writers of our church,
the meaning of the Greek language! Don’t you intend presently to write a
commentary on the Scriptures? or a book of Practical Divinity? Edited
jointly by Miss Ernest and Mr. Percy!”
The young lady looked at her pastor in astonishment. She blushed deeply;
tears filled her eyes, and her utterance was choked. She had expected
sympathy and assistance; she met with ridicule and rebuke. Poor girl,
she did not know how hard it is for one who has long been accustomed to
rule other minds, and have his bare assertion received as unquestionable
truth, to be called on for _proof_. If he said baptize meant to
sprinkle, what right had she, poor, simple girl, to doubt his word or
ask for evidence? Why, even he, a minister of the Gospel, had never
asked for proof when Dr. Miller said it. He had always taken it for
granted that baptism was sprinkling, or such men as Dr. Miller would not
have asserted that it was; nor would the church have enjoined or
permitted it.
There was an awkward pause in the conversation, for Theodosia was too
deeply mortified and embarrassed to know how to begin again.
Mr. Johnson saw that he had made a deep impression, though he did not
feel quite certain of its nature. And he said, very mildly, “My dear
child, don’t pretend to be wiser than your teachers. I can solemnly
assure you, as a Christian man and a Christian minister, that the word
we render baptize does legitimately signify the application of water in
any way as well as by immersion, no matter what the Lexicons may say;
and if so, sprinkling is as much baptism as dipping. The quantity of
water used does not affect the validity of the ordinance.”
To this Theodosia did not reply. She felt that it was useless to ask
again for proof; and if she did not feel disposed to trust even her
pastor’s solemn declaration in regard to the meaning of baptize, it was
because she remembered that Dr. Barnes had proved it to mean “not to
sprinkle,” but “to dip;” that Stuart admitted this to be its prevalent
and common signification; that the great Dr. Chalmers expressly asserted
that its meaning was to dip, and that it was immersion which was
practiced in the early churches; that McKnight and other most eminent
and learned Pedobaptists all agreed perfectly with the Lexicons in
giving immersion as its true meaning, and proving that such was the
understanding and practice of the apostolic churches. What Baptists
might teach she did not know, for as yet she had not read a Baptist
book. She had common sense enough to understand that if there had been
any sprinkling or pouring in the Word, such men as Stuart, and Chalmers,
and McKnight, would have been sure to find it and parade it before the
world as a justification of their practice. Though she was silent,
therefore, she was far from being satisfied.
Mr. Johnson, acting on the adage that “silence gives consent,”
considered this point as settled; “and now,” he continued, “if this be
the case, if the word means to sprinkle or to pour, as well as to
immerse, it is evident that John might have dipped, and Christ might
have commanded sprinkling, and yet have used the same word which is used
to describe John’s baptism. I might rest the case here; but I will go
farther, and assert that John’s baptism _was not immersion at all_.”
“Good evening, Mr. Johnson, I am glad to hear you say that,” said Mr.
Percy, who chanced to come in at the moment, and heard this strange
assertion. “If we can only establish that position we will throw the
Baptists out of court.”
“Nothing is easier done, Mr. Percy,” said the pastor. “It could not have
been immersion, in the first place, _because immersion was impossible_.”
“Of course,” said Mr. Percy, “if immersion was impossible, it could not
have been immersion. What was impossible could not have been done.”
“Very well, then, that settles the question, for it was clearly
impossible for John to have immersed the thousands and thousands (not to
say the millions) that resorted to him for baptism.”
“I don’t know about that,” said Mr. Percy. “In the first place, we must
determine just how many there were, and then just how many John was able
to dip. Do you know how many there were?”
“Not precisely,” said the pastor, “but there were great multitudes. The
Evangelist says, Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about
Jordan, went to him and were baptized. Now the population of Jerusalem
itself was a prodigious multitude, and that of all Judea added to it
would surely be more than one man could dip in the time of John’s public
ministry.”
“But,” said Mr. Percy, “it does not say that _all the inhabitants went_.
It says the _places_ went; by which we are to understand, that some of
each place mentioned went. Just as if I should say, that in the great
political Convention of 1840, all Tennessee was gathered at Nashville to
hear Henry Clay. I would not mean that every man, woman, and child in
the State was there, but only that there were some from every part of
it. Just so, Matthew says Jerusalem came—that is, a great many people
from Jerusalem and Judea, and the country round about Jordan came; that
is to say, the country as well as the city was fully represented in the
crowd. Besides, John did not baptize all who came. He positively refused
the Pharisees and Sadducees, who composed a great part of the Jewish
nation. I do not see, therefore, that we have any means of knowing the
exact number of the baptized.”
“But it can’t be denied,” said the pastor, “that it was an immense
multitude, too many for one man to have immersed.”
“Will you permit me to ask a question?” said Theodosia, timidly (for she
had become almost afraid to speak at all, since that suggestion of the
pastor about a joint editorship with Mr. Percy in a body of divinity.)
“Will you permit me to ask how much longer it would take to _immerse_
them, one at a time, than it would to _sprinkle_ them one at a time, in
a decent and reverent way?”
“We do not know,” said the pastor, “that they were sprinkled _one at a
time_. They might have stood in regular ranks along the bank, and John
taking a bunch of hyssop might have dipped it in the river and sprinkled
them by dozens as he passed along.”
“Or,” suggested Mr. Percy, “he might have provided himself with a large
sized syringe or squirt gun, and filling it from the river have turned
its stream along the ranks, as I have seen the boys do at school,
sprinkling a whole bench of boys before the master could see who did
it.”
This was uttered with such a perfectly serious air that the pastor was
obliged to receive it as an amendment to his own supposition, though he
could not help seeing in what a ridiculous light it placed both the
baptizer and his subjects; and surely, there is, in the narrative of the
Evangelists, quite as much evidence of the use of the squirt as of the
hyssop.
“There is another thought,” said Theodosia, “which it seems to me, will
obviate all the difficulty in the way of either a personal dipping or a
separate sprinkling of each individual. The Evangelist says that Jesus
made and baptized _more_ disciples than John—and when the disciples were
gathered together after his death, there does _not seem to have been a
very great multitude_. So it is probable, I should think, that though
great multitudes _came to John_, and great multitudes _followed Christ_,
yet comparatively few brought forth fruit to justify their baptism. And
besides this, as Jesus is said to have baptized, though he did not do it
personally, but by his disciples, so John may have done a portion of
_his_ baptizing by _his disciples_.”
“Spoken like yourself, Miss Theodosia,” said Mr. Percy. “That does
indeed obviate all difficulty. The baptism, whatever it was, must have
been a personal, individual transaction; and as it would take as long to
sprinkle a person, and say over the proper formula of words, as it would
to dip him, one is just as possible as the other, and either entirely
practicable with the aid of the disciples. Don’t you think so, Mr.
Johnson?”
“No, I do not; but let it pass. I have another reason for believing that
John did not immerse. It says expressly that he baptized in Bethabara,
beyond Jordan—and in the wilderness, as well as at the much waters or
many waters of Ænon, and at the river Jordan. Now, as there is no
mention made of a river at Bethabara, or of a lake in the wilderness, it
is fair to infer that no great quantity of water was required—and,
consequently, whatever he may have done in Jordan, he did not immerse in
Bethabara or in the wilderness.”
“Why not, Mr. Johnson? I can easily understand that he was baptizing in
the wilderness, Bethabara, and Jordan _at one and the same time_. The
Jews (as I have learned in my Sunday-school lessons) called any sparsely
settled place a wilderness; and Bethabara was a ford or a ferry-house,
on the east bank of the Jordan. If the neighborhood was lonely, it would
be said to be in the wilderness; and a baptism performed in the Jordan,
at that place, might be said with equal propriety to be performed in the
wilderness; in Bethabara, or in Jordan. Just as I might say that a
person was baptized in Davidson county, or in the city of Nashville,
though the act was performed in the Cumberland river, where it passes
the city.”
“Well,” said Mr. Johnson, “I do not insist on this point; and I leave it
more readily, as I have an argument that is perfectly _unanswerable_;
and that is, that John says himself that he _did not immerse_—over and
over again he repeated this testimony: ‘I indeed baptize you _with_
water, but he that cometh after me shall baptize you _with_ the Holy
Ghost and _with_ fire.’ ‘I am come,’ he says, ‘baptizing _with_ water;’
and again: ‘he that sent me to baptize _with_ water.’ Now, when I want
to know how John baptized, I go right up to the reverend man with the
hairy garment, and ask him to tell me for himself. ‘Did you baptize by
immersion?’ ‘No, sir; I baptize _with_ water, not _in_ water. I was sent
to baptize _with_ water, not _in_ water—as he that cometh after me
baptizes _with_ the Holy Ghost, not in the Holy Ghost, and _with_ fire,
not _in_ fire. So I baptize _with_ water, not _in_ the water. I apply
the water to the subject, not the subject to the water.’”
“There does seem to be some force in that,” said Mr. Percy.
“To be sure, there not only seems to be, but there _is_ a world of force
in it. It is perfectly unanswerable, sir. I am willing to rest our cause
on this one point alone. You can easily understand how one can sprinkle
with water, or pour upon with water, but no one would ever speak of
_immersing =with= water_.”
Theodosia began to think of her pastor as she had done before his visit.
He was not, after all, disposed to rest _every thing_ on his bare word.
He had the proof, and had produced it, and that, too, just as she
desired, from the Book itself. Still there was a difficulty. If John did
not immerse, why did he baptize in the river? Why did Jesus, after he
was baptized, come up out of the water?
These were insuperable difficulties, but she knew not how to present
them without seeming wiser than her teacher.
Mr. Johnson, seemingly satisfied with the victory he had won, was about
to take his leave, although it was yet early, promising to call again
soon, and show that there was no instance of immersion as baptism
recorded in the whole New Testament.
“Not only is it true,” said he, “that John did not immerse, but there is
no recognition of immersion as baptism in the Book. Neither before the
death of Christ, nor afterward, did the disciples ever dip the baptized
person in the water.”
“Please stop a minute longer,” said Mr. Percy. “While we are on John’s
baptism, I want to ask a single question. If John did not immerse, why
did he baptize in the river? If Jesus was not immersed, how does it
happen that he had been in the water? If Philip did not immerse the
Ethiopian Eunuch, for what reason did they go down both of them into the
water, before the baptism, and come up out of it after it was done?
Nobody in these days goes down into the water to baptize unless he is a
Baptist.”
“They did not go into the water, then,” replied Mr. Johnson, “any more
than we Presbyterians do now. There is no proof that John, or Jesus, or
Philip, or the Eunuch, ever went into the water at all.”
“How can that be,” asked Theodosia, “when the Scripture says expressly
that they were baptized ‘in the river of Jordan,’ and that Jesus ‘came
up out of the water,’ and that both Philip and the Eunuch ‘went down
into the water,’ and ‘came up out of the water?’”
“I know it reads so in our version,” said the pastor, “but in the
original it reads _near_ or _at the river_, not in it. And _down to the
water_, not _into_ it, and up _from_ the water, not _out of_ it.”
“Were the translators of our version Baptists?” asked Mr. Percy.
“No, sir. It is well known that they were of the Church of England.”
“Had they any motive to favor the cause of the Baptists?”
“Nome at all, that I can conceive of.”
“How, then, did they come to make such blundering work?” “I cannot tell;
but if they had known that the Baptists would make such a handle of
these little words ‘_in_, and _out of_,’ I have no doubt they would have
been more cautious. I hope now, Miss Theodosia, that your mind is
relieved. I will try to see you again to-morrow, when we will finish the
subject. For the present, I must bid you good-night.”
Theodosia accompanied him to the door, to light him out, and glancing up
the street in the opposite direction to that which he took, she
discovered Edwin and Mr. Courtney returning from an evening recitation,
and could not resist the desire to hear what the teacher might have to
say about baptizing with the water at the bank of the river. She
accordingly waited till he came by, and invited him in.
“Well, Courtney,” said Mr. Percy, as he entered the parlor, “we have got
you in a tight place now.”
“Why? what has happened? Any thing wonderful? You look as though you
thought so.”
“Yes, sir. The truth is, Mr. Johnson _did_ have some strong reasons, and
he has brought them out on us to-night. He has in fact _proved_ what he
said, and what you seemed to think impossible; that John’s baptism was
_not_ immersion, and that the Saviour never went into the water at all,
but was sprinkled on the bank.”
“Well, how did he make all that out?”
“From the testimony of John himself. John says that he baptized not _in_
but _with_ water. It is easy to conceive of sprinkling with water, but
no one ever heard of immersing with water.”
“Is that all?”
“Yes, that is the substance of the argument.”
“Is it possible,” said Mr. Courtney, “that a minister of Jesus Christ
can take such liberties with the Word of God!”
“What do you mean? Mr. Courtney. Is it not all so?” asked Theodosia, in
alarm, for she felt that if her pastor had deceived her, even in this
point, she could never trust the word of any one again upon this
subject.
“Mr. Percy,” said Mr. Courtney, “can you read Greek? But never mind,
Edwin shall set us right.”
“I can read a little, and, when in practice, could do as well as most of
our graduates,” said Mr. Percy.
“Well, then, you can judge if I attempt to deceive you. Now, what will
you say if you find that John’s assertion, so often repeated, reads in
the Greek Testament, in every instance, I baptize you _‘in’_ water,
never _‘with,’_ in a single case? What will you say if you read, not
only that Christ was baptized _‘in’_ Jordan, but _‘into’_ the river of
Jordan?”
“Why, I will say that you have gained a victory over all the doubts and
difficulties which remained in my mind, and I will be convinced that
John immersed, and that Jesus was immersed by him in Jordan.”
“And I,” said Theodosia, “will be convinced that theologians are the
strangest people in the world.”
“Say rather, Presbyterian or Pedobaptist theologians, Miss Ernest, for
the Baptists do not have to bear up and twist about under such a load of
error and inconsistency, and can consequently afford to talk, right out,
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They can afford
to take the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, with
every word translated into plain English, and abide by its decisions.
They shun on investigation, avoid no controversy, and have no need to
change or keep concealed one single word of the holy record. But let us
to our task, for it is growing late. Edwin, have you your Greek
Testament here?”
“Yes, sir; and my Lexicon and Grammar.”
“Please bring them in.”
“Edwin, can you tell us what is the primary and ordinary meaning of the
Greek preposition ‘_en_’?”
“It means _in_, sir; or within, with the idea of rest in a place.” (See
Bullion’s Greek Grammar, p. 170.)
“What is the difference between _en_ and _eis_?”
“_Eis_ signifies motion from without to within. _En_ corresponds to the
English preposition _in_—_eis_ corresponds to the English _into_.”
“I asked those questions, Mr. Percy, not on your account, but to satisfy
Miss Ernest. You are perfectly aware (as every school-boy who has gotten
through his Greek Grammar must be) of the correctness of Edwin’s
answers.
“Now be kind enough to take the Greek Testament, and find John i. 26—‘I
baptize with water.’ How does it read?”
“It reads, ‘_baptizo en udati_,’ _in_ water, true enough.”
“And so you will find it in every place. See the 31st verse, ‘_en_’
again; so in the 33d, and every place where this expression, which your
pastor so much relies upon, can be found.
“In any other Greek book, any school-boy would, without hesitation,
translate it, ‘I immerse you _in_ water.’ ‘I am come immersing in
water,’ etc. But now, if you will turn to Mark i. 9, you will find that
the preposition is not ‘_en_,’ but ‘_eis_.’ So that Jesus is said to
have been baptized or dipped, not merely _in_ but (‘_eis_’) _into_ the
river of Jordan.
“Now these two words, _en_ and _eis_, are the only words by which the
Greek language could express, without circumlocution, the idea of going
into, or being in a thing or place; and therefore, if neither of them
says that the baptism was done _in_ the river, I do not see how it
_could_ be said to have been done there.
“Now I grant that, very rarely, _en_ does mean with, and that it
sometimes, though very seldom, does mean at, or near; but neither of
these is the primary, common, every-day use of the word. _En_ means
_in_, in Greek, as much as in does in English. _Eis_ means _into_, in
Greek, as much as _into_ does in English.”
“But, Mr. Courtney, there must be some foundation for Mr. Johnson’s
supposition, that _en_ means _with_, or it would not have been so
translated.”
“Very true, Miss Ernest. _En_ does sometimes (though very rarely) mean
_with_ in the sense of the instrument—by which an action is
accomplished. But when a man would found an argument on its having that
meaning in every particular case, he must _first prove that such is OR
NECESSITY ITS MEANING IN THAT INSTANCE_. If ‘_En udati_?’ necessarily
meant _with_ water—if that was even its common, primary meaning, as it
would be naturally understood in any other book, or in connection with
any other subject, then it might form the basis for an argument; but no
school-boy would think of any thing else but _in_ water, whenever he
would see it; and, consequently, for a classical scholar, like your
pastor, to form an argument upon ‘_with_,’ as the common meaning of
‘_en_,’ is indicative either of great carelessness, or wilful perversion
of the Word of God.
“Here is a fact which will enable you to form some more definite
conception of the nature of the case. Some very industrious gentleman
has counted the places, and so ascertained that this little preposition
‘EN’ occurs no less than two thousand seven hundred and twenty times in
the New Testament. In about twenty-five hundred of these places, it is
in our version correctly rendered IN. In over twenty other places, _in_
would _better_ express the evident meaning of the original. In only
about forty places, out of over twenty-seven hundred, does it of
necessity mean _with_, in the sense of the instrument or material with
which any thing is done. The chances, therefore, are as twenty-seven
hundred to forty, that an argument based on the word ‘_with_’ (where it
stands for the Greek word ‘_en_’) will lead to a false conclusion, and
the chances are as twenty-seven hundred to forty that an argument based
on ‘_in_,’ as the real meaning of the word, will lead to a true
conclusion. I baptize you in water, or, if we translate both words, I
immerse, or more properly, I _dip_ you _in_ water, is therefore the true
reading.”
“But why, Mr. Courtney, should our translators have employed ‘_with_’
whenever ‘_en_’ occurs in connection with baptize?”
“Tor the same reason, Miss Ernest, that they refused to translate
baptize. They were forbidden by King James to change the ‘Ecclesiastical
words.’ They must not teach immersion. But if they had said baptize
‘_in_’ water, it would have been just as plain that there was no
sprinkling or pouring in the ordinance, as though they had translated
‘baptize’ in the New Testament, in the same way that you have seen they
did in the Old, in all the places where (according to Mr. Barnes) the
word occurs.
“But they did not use ‘_with_,’ in every case, because that construction
would have been, in some instances, such a monstrous perversion, that
every one could see it. They did not venture to say that the people were
baptized WITH _the river of Jordan_, confessing their sins; or that
Christ was baptized WITH _the Jordan_; or that John was baptizing WITH
_the wilderness_. Mark i. 4. It was only where the connection did not
make the meaning clearly obvious to the unlearned, that they ventured to
mystify the ordinance by the substitution of with, in the place of the
common and primary meaning of the ‘_en_.’”
“If I do not forget,” said Mr. Percy, “_with_, when signifying the
instrument by which any thing is done, is in the Greek language,
commonly expressed by ‘_dia_’ construed with the genitive.”
“Yes; but even if John had said ‘_dia_,’ instead of ‘_en_,’ the pastor
would have had no sufficient basis for his argument; for even ‘_dia_’
would have been a very slight, and very narrow, and very sandy
foundation. It would only have told that it was _water_, and not oil, or
mud, or sand, or any other instrument or material with which the baptism
was performed. It would have said nothing at all about the _mode_ of
performing the act. If I say that the cloth of which my coat was made
was colored with a solution of indigo, I don’t even intimate that the
solution was sprinkled on it or poured on it. The cloth was _dipped_ in
it. I only mean that it was dipped _in indigo_, not in logwood, or
madder, or any other dye-stuff. If I say that the leather of which my
boots are made, was tanned _with_ an infusion of hemlock bark, I don’t
deny that it was dipped in the infusion, I only mean that it was
hemlock, not black oak, or red oak, or any other kind of material that
was used.”
“Oh, yes!” exclaimed Edwin, who all the time had been a most attentive,
though a silent listener. “I asked old aunt Chloe, the cook, only this
morning, how she would get the feathers off the chicken she was killing
for dinner. ‘I will scald it,’ said she, ‘_with_ hot water.’ And I went
into the kitchen, and saw her doing it by _putting it into_ the water.
And big Joe, the butcher, when he killed our hogs last Christmas,
loosened the bristles and hair _with_ hot water, but he did it by
_immersion_, for he dipped them several times into the barrel and then
pulled them out and scraped them.”
“That will do, Edwin,” said Mr. Percy, laughing. “I see we must give it
up. If you won’t give us any more illustrations, I will promise never to
mention ‘_with_’ again, by way of argument on this subject, as long as I
live; and seriously, Mr. Courtney, I feel that I have reason to be
ashamed of myself for having been so easily imposed upon by this mere
semblance of argument, presented with so much parade, and such an air of
confidence, by our pastor, Mr. Johnson. I shall soon begin, like Miss
Ernest, to lose confidence in all teachings but those of the Bible, and
in all teachers but my own judgment.”
“These, sir, are your only safeguards,” replied Mr. Courtney; “but it is
well to remember, that, though God’s word is infallible, our judgment
may be biased by our feelings; and when we study the Word, therefore, we
should pray for a _heart willing to receive_, and a _will ready to obey_
all the commandments of our Heavenly Master. The difficulty with many
persons is not so much that they _cannot understand_ as they are
_unwilling to obey_. You will, I fear, find it much easier to satisfy
your mind that immersion is the only scriptural baptism, than to abandon
your church connections, and submit to be baptized according to the
commandment of Jesus Christ. But I must bid you good-night. It is time I
was at home.”
THE FOURTH NIGHT’S STUDY.
Which begins in the day, and includes, among other strange things, the
pastor’s proof that immersion was not practiced by the apostles any more
than it had been by John.
The baptism of the Holy Ghost.
The baptism of the three thousand.
Fourth Night’s Study.
On the following day, the Rev. Mr. Johnson called at Mrs. Ernest’s
cottage soon after dinner. Mrs. E. was delighted with this evident token
of his interest in her daughter’s welfare. She had now given up all hope
of inducing her to abandon the investigation; and was only anxious to
get through with it as soon as possible. Much as she had disliked Mr.
Courtney’s remarks at the time of his first call, she made no objection
to the second visit; and even went so far as to ask her daughter why she
did not invite some of the Baptists to meet Mr. Johnson face to face,
when she would see what would become of all their hard sayings about the
“Ministers of our church.”
“That little Baptist pedagogue,” said she, “would no more dare to say
such things as he did about Dr. Barnes, and Dr. Chalmers, and Dr.
McKnight, in the presence of Mr. Johnson, than he would to put his head
into the lion’s mouth. He finds that he can twist you and Mr. Percy
about his thumb just as he pleases, but let him come where Mr. Johnson
is, or any body else who has studied this subject, and I’ll warrant you
he will be as mute as a mouse.”
“Well, Miss Theodosia,” said the pastor, as soon as the young lady came
in, and had exchanged with him the compliments of the morning, “I proved
to you last evening, I trust beyond the shadow of a doubt, that John’s
baptism was not immersion. And now, as I have an hour to spare, I will,
if you can give me your attention, show you that we have quite as good
ground for believing that the Apostles did not immerse any more than
John did; and that in fact there was never any such a thing as even a
single instance of immersion as baptism mentioned in the sacred
Scriptures.”
(Theodosia was about to interrupt him, and ask some further explanation
concerning the Greek preposition “_en_,” and the English preposition
“_with_;” but remembering the “Book of Divinity,” and thinking it safer
not to seem “wiser than her teacher,” she continued silent. He went on,
therefore, in blissful ignorance of the utter overthrow of all the
beautiful edifice which he had so ingeniously erected the night before.)
“Now be kind enough to get your Bible, and turn to Acts i. 5.”
“Yes, yes, Mr. Johnson,” said the mother, “that is the way to study the
subject. Show it to her in the Bible itself, for she declares she won’t
believe a single word but what she can see in the Bible with her own
eyes.”
“Well, then, here it is; just read it, my child.”
Theodosia read, “For John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be
baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence.” And as she read, she
could not help giving the passage, in her mind, the true rendering,
“John indeed immersed you _in_ water,” etc.
“You see from this,” resumed the pastor, “that not only John himself
said that he baptized _with_ water, but that Jesus Christ also declared
the same thing. But that is not the point to which I wish now to direct
your attention. We settled that point yesterday. (Yes! thought
Theodosia, but it did not continue settled.) What I want you to notice
now is the prophetic declaration in this text: ‘Ye shall be baptized
with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.’ Now turn to the second
chapter, and you will see the fulfilment of this prediction. When the
day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one
place, and then and there they received this baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Now tell me how this baptism was performed. Just read the 17th verse and
you will see. ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God,
that I will _pour out_ of my spirit,’ etc. And now read the 33d verse:
‘Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received
of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this,
which ye now see and hear.’ Here then you see that the influences of the
Spirit are called a _baptism_, and they are distinctly said to be
‘_poured out_,’ and to be ‘_shed forth_.’ And from this it follows, as a
matter of course, that baptism is _pouring_ and _shedding forth_ or
_sprinkling_. I do not see how it is possible for any thing to be
clearer or more convincing than this.”
“Certainly,” exclaimed Mrs. Ernest, the mother; “that must convince any
body in the world. I should like to know what the schoolmaster could say
to that. I do wish, Mr. Johnson, you would preach a sermon on this
subject, and just set the matter at rest.”
“Pardon me, Mr. Johnson,” said Theodosia, “if this argument does not
appear so conclusive to me as it seems to you. I was reading this very
chapter this morning, and the same difficulty came into my mind then
which you have presented now. It was on my mind when I engaged in
prayer, and it was not until nearly dinner time that I was able to see
clearly how it could be that baptism _is immersion_, and yet the Spirit
be said to be _poured out_ in this most remarkable baptism. Now it is
all perfectly plain.”
“Well, Miss Ernest, will you please favor us with your explanations?”
“Certainly,” she replied. “Mr. Barnes, in his Notes on Matthew xx. 29,
explains baptism in suffering and distress, to be an overwhelming of the
soul with great and intense afflictions. ‘Are you able,’ he says, ‘to be
plunged deep in afflictions, and to have sorrows cover you like water,
and to be sunk beneath calamities as a flood?’ Now in this there is no
literal immersion, but the sorrow is represented as covering and
swallowing up the mind as water does the body in the act of baptism. It
is a metaphorical but not a real baptism.
“So in the case before us. As Christ had told James and John that they
should be immersed or overwhelmed by sufferings and sorrows, so now he
tells all the disciples that they shall in a few days be immersed or
overwhelmed by the influences of the Holy Spirit. That these influences
should cover, overpower, and swallow up their _minds_, as the water in
baptism did their _bodies_. It is no more a literal baptism than the
baptism of suffering in Matthew. It is a metaphor; and the allusion is
not to the act done in baptism, so much as to the _result_; that is, the
_swallowing up_ and _overwhelming_ of their minds by the flood of life,
and light, and joy, and heavenly influence which that day came upon
their souls.”
If the mother was surprised at the temerity of her daughter in venturing
to differ from her pastor (to her a most unheard-of event), yet her
maternal pride was so much gratified by the force and beauty of her
reasoning, that she could not be angry, and there was even a smile—a
_very slight_ smile of exultation, which crept along the curves of her
mouth, as her daughter, with animated face, and a new and strange light
in her soul illumining her eyes, entered into the discussion; and from
this time forth (though she was determined never to be convinced that
her pastor was or could be wrong) she could not help feeling secretly
gratified whenever her daughter had the best of the argument; and she
inwardly enjoyed the evident amazement and perplexity depicted in the
Rev. Mr. Johnson’s face.
He was amazed, that _one_ of the “baptized children of his church”
should have ventured not only to _differ_ from his opinions, so forcibly
expressed, but even to _reason_ with him out of the Scriptures. He was
perplexed, because he could not, for the moment, see what reply he could
successfully make.
“Surely, Mr. Johnson,” resumed the young lady, after a moment’s pause,
“you do not imagine that there was in this Pentecostal baptism any
_real, actual, literal pouring out_ of the Spirit, like water is poured
out of a pitcher, or any literal sprinkling of the Spirit, as the
minister sprinkles the water off from the ends of his fingers?”
“It does not matter at all,” he replied, “whether it was literal or
figurative, actual or metaphorical, the conclusion must be the same in
any case. There is here clearly a baptism, a scriptural baptism; a
baptism, too, of the Gospel dispensation; and this baptism was performed
by pouring. Jesus Christ prophetically foretold that they should be
baptized with the Holy Ghost; and when the prophecy was fulfilled, Peter
says expressly that the Holy Ghost was poured out.”
“But he does not say, Mr. Johnson, that the _pouring out was the
baptism_. The Holy Spirit _cannot_ be literally poured out, or sprinkled
out, nor could the disciples be literally immersed in him, any more than
they had already been; for he is, and always was, everywhere present,
and had always surrounded them on every side. It was clearly impossible,
therefore, that there could be any literal baptism, in any sense of the
word, by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. It was not the third-person
of the trinity, the Divine Spirit, that was poured out and shed forth,
but the miraculous and wonderful _influences_ of the spirit, operating
on the hearts and minds of the disciples and others. And if these
_influences_ were so powerful, and so universal, as to surround and
overpower the minds of the Apostles, they might most beautifully and
appropriately be said to be immersed in them. The baptism of _the
spirit_ is a _soul_ baptism, not a baptism of the _body_; and the
_minds_ of the disciples are represented by Christ as about to be taken
so completely into the control and direction of the Holy Spirit, that
they would, as it were, be _immersed in it and swallowed up by it_. Such
a baptism actually did occur. The minds of the disciples were thus
overwhelmed and swallowed up by the wonderful influences of the Spirit
of God; and this is what, it seems to me, was intended by Jesus, when he
said they would be immersed in the Holy Ghost.”
“Well, as to that,” rejoined the mother (whose heart had begun already
to follow her daughter), “I can see that their bodies were immersed too,
as well as their souls, for there came a sound as of a rushing mighty
wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting; and of course
it covered them all up, and entirely surrounded them, and they were in
this way immersed in it.”
“If the pouring,” resumed Theodosia, encouraged by this open expression
of her mother’s approval, “if the pouring had any thing to do with the
baptism at all, it was only by way of preparation; for as water might be
poured into a vessel preparatory to immersing any object or person in
it, so the preparation of the Holy Spirit for these wonderful influences
might be here called his _pouring out_, as such preparation is sometimes
called a _coming down_, or an _entering into_, or a _springing up_.”
“I am ready to admit,” said the pastor, “that these Pentecostal
influences were called a baptism by Jesus Christ _only in a figure_. I
hope neither of you think me so silly as to be capable of believing that
the _personal substance_ (if I may speak so) of the Holy Spirit could be
literally poured out or sprinkled. But while it is true that this
baptism was a figure, it is equally true that our baptism is a figure
also. It is designed to exhibit in an emblematical manner the cleansing
and purifying influences of the Holy Spirit in our hearts; how very
beautiful and appropriate is it, therefore, as the Holy Spirit is
represented as being figuratively poured out, in this baptism, that the
water with represents his influences should be _actually_ poured out on
us when we are baptized.”
“It might indeed,” said Theodosia, “have been a very beautiful and
appropriate emblem, and had our Saviour thought as highly of it as you
do, HE probably would have appointed it. But HE seems to have preferred
_immersion in water_; and this, while it may signify the cleansing of
the Holy Spirit, equally well, or better than the other, signifies also
our death and burial to sin, and our living again to righteousness; and
it is thus that Paul explains it when he says, ‘we are buried with him
by baptism into death, that as Christ was raised from the dead, so we
should walk in newness of life.’ It serves also to remind us of the
burial and resurrection of Jesus, and prefigures also our own coming
death, burial, and resurrection.”
“What Baptist book have you been reading to learn all that?”
“I found it, Mr. Johnson, in a Presbyterian book; in the Notes of Dr.
James McKnight on the 6th of Romans. I have never read any Baptist book
in my life, unless (as I greatly suspect) the Bible is a Baptist book.”
“I fear—I greatly fear, my child,” rejoined the pastor, “that you are
running into very serious and alarming errors. I have exhorted you, and
reasoned with you, but I fear my labors have been almost in vain. And
now, before I take my leave, I feel it my duty solemnly to warn you
before God, to take heed where you are going. I should be greatly
pained, if we should find it necessary to expel you from the church.”
“Expel me from the church! Why, Mr. Johnson, what do you mean? Have I
been guilty of any improper conduct? What have I done?”
“Nothing as yet, my child. I am happy to say, you have always been a
faithful and consistent communicant since you first approached the table
of the Lord. But now I find you growing wayward and self-willed,
whereas, the Scripture says, ‘be not high-minded, but fear—and be in
subjection to those who have the rule over you in the Lord.’ As yet, you
have only imbibed some false and injurious notions on the subject of one
of the ordinances of the church. So far, this has not led you to any
overt act of evil which could subject you to the discipline of the
church, but if you persevere in this way, and especially, _if by your
conduct and conversation you lead others_ to distrust the purity of our
doctrines, the propriety of our practice, and validity of our
ordinances, it will become our painful duty to deal with you as a
disturber of the peace and unity of the church.”
The pastor uttered this significant warning with all due solemnity of
countenance and impressiveness of manner, but it did not have the effect
upon the young lady which he had expected. A week before this time she
would have heard it with very different emotions. Now she had not only
learned to fear God rather than man, but she had, upon her bended knees,
solemnly resolved before her Maker and Redeemer that, in regard to this
subject, she would both learn and do her whole duty, whatever it might
cost her.
This was indeed an unexpected, and, to her sensitive spirit, a most
terrible test of the sincerity and firmness of that resolution, but it
did not cause her to waver even for one moment.
She did, indeed, turn deathly pale. Her chin quivered, and the light for
a moment went out in her eye. It was but for a moment, however, and
before he had completed the speech, the blood had come back to her face,
and her eyes were suffused with tears, which, however, did not overflow;
and perfect collectedness of mind and calmness of manner, though with a
scarcely perceptible tremulousness of voice, she mildly replied:
“If it was your purpose, Mr. Johnson, to deter me from making a
conscientious and complete investigation of this subject, and then
governing my conduct by the written word of God, I beg you will remember
that you have yourself instructed me that I ought to obey God rather
than man—and this, God helping me, I mean to do, whatever may be the
consequences to me or others.”
“No, no, my child, you do not understand me. I desire you should be
governed by the word of God; but I would have you remember that God has
given you _teachers_ to help you to a true understanding of his word. It
is for this purpose that he has appointed us his ministers, to guide the
young, instruct the ignorant, and make known to all what are the
teachings of that word.”
“But what if our ministers should chance to disagree? Am I to remain all
my life in doubt, or take the matter into my own hands and decide for
myself? Will the ministers answer for me in the day of judgment? _You_
tell me, Mr. Johnson, that Jesus Christ was sprinkled, but James
McKnight, another eminent minister of our own church, a Doctor of
Divinity, and for twenty years the Moderator of the General Assembly of
the Presbyterian church in the country where he lived, tells me _‘that
Jesus submitted to be baptized, that is, to be put under the water and
taken out again by John;_’ and Dr. Chalmers, another most eminent
minister of our church, tells me ‘_that the meaning of the word baptism
is immersion;_’ Martin Luther, the great reformer, says expressly, that
_it was immersion which was, ‘without doubt, instituted by Christ;_’ and
John Calvin, the father and founder of our Presbyterian church,
distinctly states that ‘_the word baptize signifies to immerse, and the
rite of immersion was practiced by the ancient church!_’”
“Yes, my child, but then do not all these great and good men, at the
same time assure you that it is a matter of no importance which way the
rite is performed?”
“They do, indeed; but that is only their own private or individual
opinion. They don’t even pretend that the word of God teaches that it is
of no consequence whether we do what Christ commanded or not. I cannot
think, like Dr. Chalmers, that it is a ‘matter of indifferency,’ or like
Calvin, that ‘it is of no consequence at all.’ I dare not set aside the
commandments of Christ for the doctrines of men; and if you will pardon
me for saying it, I do not see how any minister of Jesus Christ _can
dare to teach such sentiments_. If Jesus Christ commanded us to believe
and be immersed, I surely did not obey that command by being sprinkled.
“Pardon me, Mr. Johnson, for talking so plainly, but you have driven me
to it. You promised, this evening, to show me, out of the Scriptures,
that the baptism of the Gospel dispensation was sprinkling, and all you
have done was to show me where the Holy Ghost was, by a figure of
speech, said to be poured out on the day of Pentecost, and where Christ
had prophetically declared that they should, in some sense, that day he
_metaphorically_ immersed in the Holy Spirit—for you do not pretend that
it was more than a mystical and _figurative_ baptism which the Saviour
foretold. You did not, and you cannot prove, that this prophecy referred
to the preparatory ‘pouring out’ any more than to any of the wonderful
influences that follow the outpouring.
“Now I had learned from ministers of our own church, from Calvin and
Chalmers, and as directed by Mr. Barnes, from the word of God itself,
that the meaning of the word is a dipping or immersion. I knew that when
Jesus was baptized it was done in the river, as immersions are now
performed. And that when the Eunuch was baptized they went down into the
water, and when the solemn rite was done, they came up out of the water,
just as they do in immersions now. I knew that Paul called our baptism a
_burial_. And that our own ministers, as Chalmers and McKnight,
explained this as an allusion to the custom of the first Church, of
baptizing by immersion, and because, in the face of all this visible and
tangible evidence that the real and literal baptism submitted to, and
commanded by Christ, and practiced by the apostles in the first church,
was immersion, I could not, on the authority of a mere _figure of
speech_, and that of doubtful application, believe it to have been
pouring, you tell me I am wayward and self-willed, and intimate that I
may expect soon to be dealt with as a disturber of the peace and unity
of the church.”
“I think, Mr. Johnson,” said the mother, “that you were a little too
hard on Theodosia about that. I never could myself see much force in
these figures of speech or metaphors as Theodosia calls them.”
“Why, mother,” resumed the young lady, “if Mr. Johnson will let me
reason in the same way that he does, I will prove to him that the poor
little boy of whom we were reading this morning, that was drowned in the
river, was actually drowned on dry land by a few drops of water
sprinkled on his face.”
“I don’t see how, my daughter; but here is the paper containing the
account of the accident. I would like to hear you try.”
“‘MELANCHOLY ACCIDENT.
“‘It is our painful duty to announce that little Charlie Freeman, a
sprightly lad about nine years old, of a most lovely disposition and
extraordinary promise, the only son of his mother, and she a widow, was
accidentally _drowned_ this morning in the Cumberland river. We were one
of those who recovered the body and bore it to the dwelling of the now
doubly-bereaved mother. We cannot describe the sorrow with which this
sad event has filled our hearts. We have just left the melancholy scene,
where the heart-broken mother is sitting in the midst of a large circle
of friends who are all _drowned in tears_.’
“Now, Mr. Johnson tells me that the disciples, on the day of Pentecost,
were figuratively or metaphorically baptized _by pouring_, and if so,
then he asks me to believe that Jesus Christ must have been literally
and actually baptized in the same way, that is, by pouring, in the river
Jordan. This is the whole argument. Now I say here was a large circle of
this poor lady’s friends who were metaphorically said to be drowned in a
little water running down their faces out of their own eyes; and if so,
then the dear little boy must have been actually and literally drowned
by a few drops of water running down his face.”
“But you forget,” said the pastor, “that the lad was said to be drowned
_in the river_.”
“Not at all,” she replied, “for so also Jesus Christ is said to have
been _baptized in the river_; but you try to persuade me that he only
stood upon the bank, and John took up some of the water of the river,
and sprinkled it on his face. And some of our writers tell me that he
might have gone a few steps into the water, and there, standing in the
river, John took up a little water and poured it on his head out of a
muscle shell, or a cup. So I will grant that this poor little lad may
have gone to the bank of the river, and that some of the water of the
river was thus splashed up into his face; or that he waded in a little
way, and some other boy did the same, took up some water with his hand,
and threw it in his face—but that _he must have been drowned by a little
water running over his face_, is perfectly self-evident, for this is the
only way in which the large circle of his mother’s friends _could_ have
been drowned.”
“I see,” rejoined the pastor, “that your mind is already made up, and it
is scarcely worth while to argue the subject with you any further. You
have determined that you will not be convinced. But before I leave you
to-day, I will suggest one more point for your consideration, which, if
you are not already hardened in unbelief, can hardly fail to satisfy
you.”
“Oh no, Mr. Johnson, I am ready and anxious to be convinced. What have I
to gain by believing that immersion is the only baptism? You have
already intimated what I may expect from you and from the church which I
have loved so dearly. I fear I have already lost in part the affection
of my precious mother”—and her eyes filled with tears.
“No, my daughter,” said Mrs. Ernest, “you have not lost my love, and I
will love you still, do what you may. I know you are a dear, good,
conscientious child, and would not for the world do what you did not
believe to be right. If you leave us, my child, I can’t help mourning
over you, but I will love you still. But do listen to Mr. Johnson, my
darling, and see if he can’t convince you.”
“Certainly, mother if Mr. Johnson will show me _one single place_ in the
Word of God where baptism is called sprinkling or pouring (not in the
way of a metaphor or a figure, but literally and plainly), I will be
content. If he will show one single instance in which baptism is plainly
said to have been _done by sprinkling_ or _pouring_—not dimly and
metaphorically, as those good ladies were drowned in tears, but actually
and really, as the dear child was drowned in the river—I will ask for
nothing more. But till he can _show it show me in the Bible_, I can’t
believe that it is there.”
“As to that,” said the pastor, “I can show you sprinkling and pouring
oftener than I can immersion, for there is no such word as immersion
used in the whole book.”
“I know,” said she, “that sprinkling and pouring are mentioned often
enough, but not as baptism; what I want is the place where they are
literally said _to be actual baptism_. I know that _immerse_ does not
occur in our version, because _dip_ is generally used where the word
baptize occurs; but if _baptism_ means immersion, as Calvin, McKnight,
Chalmers, and others of our ministers say it does, and as the lexicons
of the Greek language say it does, then immerse occurs, in fact, _every
time baptize occurs_.”
“Well, well, I see you are not to be easily satisfied on this point; and
I have no more time to spare to-day. I was about to direct your
attention to another argument in this same chapter, which will, I trust,
set your mind at rest forever.
“You see here that there were no less than three thousand souls
converted by Peter’s sermon; and all this vast multitude were added to
the church that very day. Now _it is clearly impossible_ that they could
have been baptized by immersion, and, therefore, it must have been done
by sprinkling or pouring; and if so, then sprinkling and pouring must be
the Gospel baptism. I consider this argument entirely conclusive. I want
you to examine the record of the transaction carefully and candidly, and
if you can believe that these three thousand people were all immersed,
you can believe almost any thing. I will call again next week, and you
can tell me what you think of it.”
The Rev. Mr. Johnson, as he was saying this, arose and took up his hat
to depart.
“Please tell me one thing before you go,” said Theodosia. “You said _it
was impossible_ that these three thousand persons could have been
immersed. Please tell me why.”
“For two good and sufficient reasons,” he replied. “In the first place,
there was not _water_ enough; and, in the second place, there was not
_time_ enough. And either one of these circumstances was clearly
sufficient to render immersion impossible. We will not discuss the
subject any farther at present. Examine it at your leisure, and I trust,
when I see you again, I will find your mind entirely satisfied. For the
present, I must bid you good evening.”
Mr. Johnson walked home, thinking what strange perversity it was in a
young girl to venture to form an independent opinion on a theological
subject, and to question the infallibility of _his reiterated
assertions_, and even to undertake to argue the matter with her pastor.
The young lady took her Bible, and began to examine again the passages
to which the pastor had referred in their conversation; but before she
had made much progress, her mother required her assistance in some
household duties, which occupied her attention till after supper.
Scarcely was supper over, and the table cleared away, when who should
come in but her UNCLE JONES.
“Well, Theo.,” said he, in his unceremonious way, “I am told that I am
about to lose my niece, and that you are on the point of turning
Baptist.”
“Oh, uncle, don’t say that! I shall not be lost to you or any of those I
love, even though I should feel it my duty to be baptized. I will still
be your own niece, and love you as well as ever.”
“You will! Then your mind is about made up on the subject, I suppose?”
“Very nearly, uncle. I have some other points yet to examine, which were
suggested by pastor Johnson this afternoon, and unless I find them
more—”
“Some other points to examine! Suggested by the pastor! Do you, then,
undertake to differ with your pastor; and talk about deciding for
yourself in regard to one of the most difficult and complicated
questions in theology?”
“Oh, please, uncle, don’t be angry; and don’t laugh at me. I know I am
only a poor simple girl, but I am accountable only to God, and must be
decided by my own understanding of his Word. What I can’t find in the
Scripture for myself, I can’t be sure is there. If I don’t examine for
myself, how can I know any thing about it?”
“Can’t you take your pastor’s word for it?”
“Yes, if he will show me a ‘thus saith the Lord,’ as his authority.”
“But can’t you take it for granted that he has such authority, without
his pointing to the chapter and the verse?”
“It is God’s Word, uncle, that I must obey, not man’s. If it is in the
Book, he can’t object to _showing me where it is_. I want to see it for
myself. The Apostle praised the Bereans, not because they took Paul’s
word for all he said, but because ‘they searched the Scriptures’ for
themselves ‘to see whether these things were so.’”
“But what if you come to a different conclusion from the pastor? Do you
think it will be wise to trust your own judgment, rather than that of
the many great, and good, and learned men of our church, who have
examined this subject more thoroughly, and under much more favorable
circumstances, than you can hope to do? Do you think it will be
indicative of the humility required by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for a
simple girl not yet out of her teens, and without any theological
education, to set up her _own opinions_ against those of the wisest and
best men of the age?”
“No, uncle, I don’t intend to set up my opinions against those of the
great and good men you speak of. But I find that others, equally great
and good men, after a careful examination of the subject, have come to a
different conclusion; and that some of these same Doctors of Divinity in
our church, while they practice one thing, and instruct us to do it, yet
expressly declare that it was another and a very different thing which
Christ commanded and the first Christians practiced. Now ‘when the
doctors disagree,’ not only with each other, but with themselves, what
is a poor, simple girl like me to do? I can’t study theology, _but I can
study the Bible_. If sprinkling, as baptism, is there, I can see it.
Pastor Johnson says it is there; other learned theologians say it is
not. What can I do? I say to each of them, if sprinkling is commanded,
show me where; if pouring is commanded, point out the place; if dipping
is commanded, let me see it for myself. If I can’t find it, and you
can’t show it to me, I won’t believe it’s in the book at all. I hope,
uncle, you don’t really think that I am proud or egotistical; I only
want to know just what my Saviour requires. I will believe any thing,
and do any thing, if you will only show me that he has said it or
commanded it.”
“No, my dear child, I don’t think you are egotistical or proud. I admire
your independence, and I wish every person, in every place, would in the
same way search the Scriptures, and understand perfectly the grounds on
which their faith and practice rests. It is not only the privilege, but
the _duty_ of every person, to examine and decide for themselves
personally, what the Word of God requires. Religion is a _personal
thing_. It requires _personal_ obedience—and that, too, of the heart,
which cannot be rendered without some degree of _personal understanding_
of the Word. If you trust your conscience in any man’s keeping, you
place yourself in a dangerous condition. I am rejoiced to see you
studying this subject for yourself. And indeed I was only trying your
courage a little, when I affected to be surprised at your doing so. But
seriously, my dear Theo., why did you not come to your uncle with your
difficulties?”
“I did intend to consult you, uncle, before my final decision, but the
question came up so unexpectedly, and our investigation has gone on so
rapidly, that I have not yet had any very convenient opportunity; and
besides, uncle, to tell the truth, I was afraid you would either be
angry, or laugh at me.”
“You were! Well, then, I will disappoint you, for so far from laughing
at you, I consider it a very serious and most important question; and
instead of being angry with you, it will give me great pleasure to
assist you in the investigation; and if I can’t show you the sprinkling
baptism in the Bible, I will be immersed myself. I will not be like
those Doctors of Divinity you spoke of, who say one thing and practice
another. If Jesus Christ did not command sprinkling, I for one will
neither teach nor practice it. I have felt for some time that it was my
own duty to investigate this subject, and I will do it now—and with your
assistance.”
“Oh, uncle, don’t talk of my assistance. I am but an ignorant, though
anxious inquirer after the truth, and am obliged to call for help on
others at every step. If I should speak of rendering assistance to you,
I should indeed deserve to be called proud and egotistical.”
“Well, well; any way, my child. If you won’t help me, I will help you.
Tell me just how far you have got along, what discoveries you have made,
and where you are standing now—and then we will consider of the rest.”
“It will be too long a story, uncle, to go over all the road that I have
traveled. But I have learned that there is ‘_one Lord, one faith, and
ONE BAPTISM_.’ I have been inquiring whether that baptism is sprinkling,
or pouring, or dipping. I have discovered that baptize, as it is used in
the New Testament, is a Greek word, and must be understood as those who
read and spoke the Greek language in our Saviour’s time would understand
it. Dr. Albert Barnes told me I could learn this by examining the
fifteen places where, he says, the word occurs in the Old Testament. I
hunted out each place, and found it meant ‘to dip.’ I looked in
Webster’s dictionary, and found that to dip in water, was to plunge an
object into the fluid and instantly take it out again—the very act which
the Baptists perform when they baptize. I got Edwin to look in his Greek
Lexicon, and he found that the word had the same meaning there—that
baptism was immersion. I read McKnight and Chalmers on the 6th of
Romans, and found that these great Doctors of Divinity in the
Presbyterian church agreed in declaring the same thing; and further,
that it was immersion that was practiced by the first church. I am told
that Luther, and Calvin, and Doddridge, and a great many others of the
most eminent of our theologians, teach the same things. And I have not
yet found in the Word of God a single passage which leads me to any
different conclusion. Unless, therefore, I should find, as pastor
Johnson assures me I shall, that it was clearly impossible to immerse
the three thousand that were added to the church on the day of
Pentecost, I must be convinced.”
“On what ground does your pastor think it impossible?”
“He says there was neither water enough, nor time enough.”
“Well, how can you prove that there was?”
“It don’t seem to me, uncle, that it is necessary that I should be able
to prove it in any other way than by the mere statement of the Scripture
that they were baptized; for if the word baptize means to immerse, then
the book _says they were immersed_; and if they were immersed, there
_must_ have been time enough, and water enough, whether I can prove it
or not. If I do not believe this, I make God a liar.”
“But what if it can be clearly shown that there _was not_ water enough,
or time enough; then would it not be more reasonable to suppose the word
has some _other meaning_, than to believe the record to be false?”
“Perhaps it would, but the pastor only _said_ it. He did not _try_ to
_prove_ it. Nor do I see how it would be possible _now_ to determine how
much water there was in Jerusalem eighteen hundred years ago, even if we
knew the exact number of gallons it would require to immerse three
thousand people. I remember that we read in 2 Kings xviii. 17, about the
‘upper pool,’ and in 2 Kings xx. 20, about the _‘pool’_ that Hezekiah
made, and in Nehemiah about another ‘_fountain_’ and ‘pool,’ and in
Isaiah xxii. 9, about the ‘waters of the lower pool,’ and in John v. 2,
about the ‘pool of Bethesda’ that had five porches, and John ix. 7,
about the ‘pool of Siloam.’”
“I think the pastor will be obliged to give it up, Theo., so far as the
want of _water_ is concerned; for in addition to this testimony from the
Scripture, we have that of many distinguished travelers, who were, like
ourselves, opposed to the Baptists; and yet all agree that Jerusalem
was, and is, one of the best watered cities on the globe. Dr. Robinson,
one of these travelers, speaks of ‘immense cisterns now, and anciently,
existing within the area of the Temple, supplied partly from rain water,
and partly by the aqueduct,’ and tells us also that ‘almost every
private house had a cistern in it,’ p. 480. Speaking of the reservoirs,
he says, p. 483—‘With such reservoirs, Jerusalem was abundantly
supplied, to say nothing of the immense pools of Solomon, beyond
Bethlehem, which were no doubt constructed for the benefit of the Holy
City.’
“‘There are,’ he says, ‘on the north side of the city, outside the
walls, two very large reservoirs, one of which is over three hundred
feet long and more than two hundred feet wide, and the other nearly six
hundred feet long by over two hundred and fifty feet wide;’ and besides
these he mentions the pool of Siloam and two others as being without the
walls. Within the walls he mentions ‘the pool of Bathsheba,’ ‘the pool
of Hezekiah,’ and ‘the pool of Bethesda.’ The pool of Hezekiah he says
was about two hundred and forty feet long by about one hundred and
forty-four feet broad; the pool of Bethesda three hundred and sixty feet
long by one hundred and thirty feet wide; and besides these he mentions
an aqueduct and numerous other fountains. (Rob. Resh. in Pal. pp. 480 to
516.)
“But we might have known, without any of this testimony, that a city to
which the whole male population of a vast and fertile country were
required to resort several times a year, and whose religious ceremonial
required such frequent ablutions as did that of the Jews at the time of
Christ, would be abundantly furnished with the means of bathing, and
consequently present sufficient facilities for immersion. Moreover, the
water would not be destroyed by dipping in it; and therefore the same
quantity that would suffice for one would do for a hundred. And it is
evident that so far as the water is concerned, _any one_ of these
numerous pools, either in or out of the city, would have sufficed. But
was there not another and more serious difficulty? These pools and
fountains belonged to the Jews. The same men who hated and crucified
Christ now had control of the water of the city and the suburbs, and is
it probable that they would permit the disciples to use them?”
“Certainly they would,” said Theodosia, “for in consequence of the
wonderful events of this day, the Scripture says that ‘fear came upon
every soul,’ and that the disciples ‘did eat their meat with gladness
and singleness of heart, praising God and _having favor with all the
people_.’ They gave them the Temple to preach in, and it is not likely
that they would refuse the pools to baptize in.”
“Surely,” said Uncle Jones, “that must remove all conceivable difficulty
as to the water; but we may not find it so easy to arrange matters in
regard to time. Time has always been a very unaccommodating old fellow;
and a day among the Jews was only twelve hours, from six in the morning
till six at night, and if we can’t get the three thousand into the water
within that period, we shall be obliged to leave some or all of them
out, and dispose of them in some other way.”
“Well, uncle, I don’t see why we can’t dispose of some of them in some
other way, for the Scripture does not say they were all _baptized_ that
day, but only all _added_ to the company of the disciples; and _some_ of
them may have been baptized by John or by the disciples of Jesus Christ
before his death, and now only come out publicly and consorted with the
Apostles; and some might have gone up to them and joined their ranks
that day and have been baptized afterward. As a person is now said to
have joined the Baptists when he makes a profession of religion among
them, and is _received by them for baptism_.
“But is it by any means certain that three thousand could not all have
been immersed that day? It would not be hard to tell if we knew how much
time there was; how many administrators there were; and just how many
each one of them could immerse.”
“Well, stop a little, Theo.; let us take up one point at a time. How
many hours had they to go upon? though as to that, I don’t see why it
would not take about as long to _sprinkle_ or _pour_ upon them, one at a
time, and reverently repeat the formula, ‘I baptize thee in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,’ as it would to
immerse them; _but we will examine_. What says the record? It seems that
when Peter commenced his speech, it was not yet nine o’clock in the
morning, which, as the Jews counted from six, would be the ‘third hour
in the day.’ How long before nine it was we cannot tell. We will suppose
it was just nine, and there were, consequently, only nine hours
remaining, before six in the evening, which closed the day. Peter’s
speech, as it is recorded, would not have occupied a quarter of an hour
in its delivery; but it is said that he exhorted them with many other
words; so we will suppose he spoke an hour, or we will say _two_ hours.
It would then be eleven o’clock. Now we will give them another hour to
go to the water, so that it is twelve o’clock when the baptism begins.
Now they must finish, you see, in six hours; so that is our limit as to
time.”
“Very well, uncle, we will consider it so, though really I can’t see
that Peter spoke even _one_ hour, much less two. But now how many
administrators were there?”
“This is a question,” said Uncle Jones, “about which there is some
difference of opinion. There were certainly the twelve Apostles, and
many think also the seventy others whom Jesus sent out two by two—who
must have been present, as Luke says ‘they were all with one accord in
one place.’ If so, then there were eighty-two authorized administrators.
But let us, first, to obviate all difficulties, suppose there were only
the twelve, who would each have just two hundred and fifty persons to
immerse. So on this supposition, the question is narrowed down to
this—can one man immerse two hundred and fifty persons in six hours? I
have felt some little curiosity on this subject, and when I have
witnessed immersions, have taken out my watch, and observed the time. It
has usually required about fifteen minutes to immerse twenty persons;
provided the candidates march in two by two, to the place where the
administrator is standing. This allowance of time permits the work to be
done without any appearance of haste, and with the coolest deliberation.
“I have been told by several Baptist ministers, whose veracity I have no
reason to doubt, that they have immersed large numbers at the rate of
two in every minute, or sixty in half an hour. At this rate the twelve
would have finished the work of this occasion in a little over two
hours—two hours and ten minutes. If they only worked half so fast, and
baptized but one a minute, they had time to get through, and more than
an hour and a half to spare. They could each have stopped every half
hour, and rested ten minutes, and then have gotten through in time.”
“So, uncle, it is as I suspected, there is no difficulty as to time,
even though only the twelve were engaged in the work; but if the seventy
assisted, then how long would it take?”
“In that case, there would have been less than forty persons for each
administrator, and of course it could have been done in less than half
an hour.”
“But, uncle, is it certain that any one besides the twelve were
authorized to baptize?”
“Surely, Theo., others must have been, for it is evident that Aquila,
Acts xviii. 2, and Apollos, Acts xviii. 24, and Paul himself, Acts ix.
18, were baptized by _others than the twelve_. And Peter, when he had
preached the Word to the household of Cornelius, did not baptize them
himself, but directed it to be done by some one else—Acts x. 14. But
whether this baptism was performed by the twelve, or by the twelve
assisted by the seventy, does not now concern us, as we find there was
no want of time in either case. And so you have found nothing in this
case to change your opinion concerning the meaning of the word baptize.
Now have you any other difficulties in, your way?”
“Not that I know of now, uncle. The case seems to me to be perfectly
plain. But perhaps you can suggest some other source of information
which I have not yet explored.”
“Indeed, my dear niece, I am myself in great perplexity upon this very
question. I have been some time engaged in its investigation; much
longer than you have, and have been compelled to come to about the same
conclusions with yourself—though this is the first time I have ever
mentioned it.”
“Oh, uncle, is it possible? Oh, if I had only known this four days ago.”
“Oh, yes. If you had known it, I suppose you would have been quoting
Uncle Jones as high authority for your heretical opinions. But I beg you
will not mention this, even to your mother, until I shall have finally
decided the case. But tell me now, Theo., what do you intend to do?”
“There is only one thing, uncle, that I _can_ do. I must obey my
Saviour—I must be baptized. There is only one reflection that still
casts a shade of doubt across my mind, and that is this: if it was
immersion that Christ commanded, and the Apostles and first Christians
practiced, how has it so universally been set aside, and sprinkling
substituted in its place?”
“A very important point is that, my dear niece, and I hope you will come
to no final conclusion till you have investigated thoroughly the whole
subject in all its bearings. And be assured, if I can in any way assist
you, I will be most happy to do so. But your friend, Mr. Courtney, is
much more familiar with these subjects than I am. Suppose I mention your
difficulty to him, and request him to call to-morrow evening. Perhaps I
may come with him.”
THE FIFTH NIGHT’S STUDY.
Which contains a very important discussion on a very important question.
New characters and curious arguments.
The sacred or appropriate use of the word baptize, as distinguished from
the common.
Fifth Night’s Study.
Uncle Jones was Professor of Languages in the College to which we have
once or twice before referred. A frank, free-spoken man, with a clear
head and warm heart, in which affection for his amiable, talented, and
beautiful niece held no small space. Like most of the members of his
denomination, having received his so-called baptism without his own
knowledge or consent, he had never, until very recently, felt that he
had any personal interest whatever in this subject.
He had been informed that he was baptized while yet an infant in his
mother’s arms, and whether it was properly or improperly done had been
no concern of his. It had been the duty of his parents and their pastor
to attend to that, and he had never inquired whether they did it illy or
well.
A few days since, however, his attention had been directed to the
subject by a somewhat singular occurrence. Mr. Courtney, the teacher,
was spending a leisure hour at Prof. Jones’s room, at a time when no
recitation claimed the attention of either, and they were earnestly
discussing some item of the morning’s news, when two of the college
students looked in, and seeing a visitor, were about to withdraw, but
the Professor, with his characteristic kindness, called them back, and
inquired in what way he could serve them.
After a moment’s hesitation the younger, (whose name was Pearson)
replied: “Oh, it is of no consequence, Professor Jones. Chum and I had a
little dispute which we agreed to refer to you for decision, but as you
are engaged we will call some other time.”
“No, no,” said the Professor, “come in and tell me now. I am quite at
liberty. Perhaps Mr. Courtney will assist us, if there is any thing
important to determine upon.”
“Oh, no,” said Smith (the other student), “it is of no great importance.
We only wish to ask you what is the Greek word for _to dip_.”
“It is _embapto_, _bapto_, or _baptizo_, young gentlemen. Why did you
not refer to your English and Greek Lexicon? That would have enabled you
to answer the question for yourselves.”
“We did refer to that,” said Pearson; “but Smith was not satisfied with
the Lexicon. He thought there must be some mistake. Now,” he continued,
“will you be kind enough to tell us what was the word which, among the
Greeks, commonly signified _to pour_?”
“Certainly. _Cheo_ signifies _to pour_.”
“Had the Greeks any words which commonly meant to sprinkle?”
“Yes, _raino_ meant to sprinkle.”
“Had they any word which meant to wet?”
“Certainly, _brecho_ signified to wet. But tell me, young gentlemen,
what is the object of these questions? You know the meaning of these
Greek words as well as I do.”
“Pardon me, Professor, but let me ask one question more. Did not the
Greeks have a word which signified to wash?”
“Yes, they had several. _Louo_ was used to signify a general washing, as
by bathing, and _nipto_ a partial one, as of the hands alone. The Greek
language was perhaps even more copious in words of this sort than the
English. It had a word to express almost every manner of using water.”
“Excuse me, Professor Jones, but I want to ask one question more. Will
you please to tell us whether bapto and _baptizo_ are not as properly,
and as commonly rendered by _dip_ as _cheo_ is by _pour_, or _raino_ by
_sprinkle_, or _louo_ by _wash_.
“Certainly they are, except when _bapto_ has its secondary meaning, to
dye, to color, to stain. But now, young gentlemen, you must permit me to
turn questioner. I desire to know for what purpose you come with such a
string of questions to _me_?”
“We hope you will not be offended, sir; but Smith and I,” said Pearson,
“went last Sabbath afternoon to witness the immersion; and have since
had a little discussion on the meaning of the word baptize and its
cognates, as used in the Scriptures in reference to the ordinance.
“We found the words in the Lexicon just as we would any other words, and
by this means, were, as I thought, obliged to translate them by dipping
or immersion.
“But Smith contended that there must be some error in this, and that
_baptismos_ must signify a sprinkling or a pouring, as well as a
dipping; and since we could find no authority for this in the Grammars
or Lexicons of the language, he insisted on coming to you about it.”
“Certainly, sir, there must be some mistake about these words in the
Lexicons, for my father was a Presbyterian minister, and I know he was a
good Greek scholar, and yet he not only baptized by sprinkling, but
insisted that there was no such thing as immersion ever spoken of for
baptism. The president of this college and all the faculty are
Presbyterians, and they all approve of sprinkling as baptism—which they
certainly _could not_ do if the very word baptism in the Greek signifies
immersion. I cannot understand it, sir, if Jesus Christ meant to say
sprinkle, why did he not use the word _raino_? If he meant to say pour,
why did he not use the word _cheo_ or _eccheo_? If he meant to say wet
(that is, to apply water in any form), why did he not use the word
_brecho_? As it seems to be certain, from the practice of the best and
most learned clergymen of the world, that he did not and could not have
meant dip or immerse, why did he use a word which commonly, if not
always, meant to immerse? And which, as a matter of course, every one
who read or spoke the Greek would understand to mean immerse? I wish,
Professor Jones, you would be kind enough to explain this to us, sir,
for Pearson has annoyed me about it till I have almost lost my
patience.”
The professor himself was somewhat annoyed by these questions, and the
more so because they had been asked in the presence of Mr. Courtney,
whom he knew to be a Baptist, and a thorough classical scholar. He was,
however, too prudent to permit the students to discover his
embarrassment, and only replied, “We often find it much easier to ask
questions, young gentlemen, than it is to answer them—but in the present
case, you have only to recollect that words often undergo a change of
meaning in the lapse of time, or by transfer to other places, and your
difficulties with all vanish. We may grant that dipping or immersion is
the idea which was originally connected with these words—and so it is
still in the classic Greek; hence this is what you find in the Lexicons
of the language; but the Greek of the New Testament was not the pure
classic Greek, but a sort of Jew Greek, if I may so speak, which had
come into use in Palestine, and may have been different from the
language as originally spoken and written; and as the writers of the New
Testament were treating of a new system of religion, they would be very
likely to use words in a new sense. And though it cannot be denied that
the idea of submersion is almost always in these words as they occur in
the classical writers, yet it does not of necessity follow that it must
be in them as constantly when they are used by the evangelists.”
“Thank you, sir,” said Smith. “That is very satisfactory.” And the young
men took their leave.
When they were gone, Professor Jones, observing the peculiar expression
of Mr. Courtney’s countenance, was led to continue the subject. “You did
not seem,” said he, “to be as well satisfied as the boys were with my
explanation.”
“If you will pardon me for saying so, Professor, I do not see how you
could be satisfied with it yourself.”
“And why not, pray?”
“Because you have too much good sense to take it for granted that a
thing is true only because it possibly may be true. You intimated, if
you did not plainly assert to the young men, that these words, _bapto_,
_baptizo_, and their co-relatives, signify to sprinkle, and pour, in the
Greek New Testament, though you will admit that they never have those
meanings in any other Greek book; and your sole and entire authority for
this assertion, is the fact that some other words have changed their
meaning, and therefore it was possible that these might have done so
also. I grant that they might have changed, but there is not even the
shadow of any evidence to show that they have really done so. Some men
have applied to the Legislature and had their names changed; and so you
and I might have done, but this is certainly no proof that our names
have been changed. If you build an argument, or base an explanation on
this change, it is not enough to suppose it to be possible that such a
change _might_ occur; you must prove it to be certain that such a change
_did_ occur.”
“But you will grant,” replied Professor Jones, “that it was at least
probable, that as Christ was introducing a new order of things in
religion, new words, or rather old words with new meanings, should be
employed in describing this new ordinance.”
“So far from granting that it was probable, I will prove that it was
morally impossible; though, if it had been even probable, it would not
justify your conclusions.
“What would you think of the common sense of that member of Congress who
should treat the Constitution of the United States in the same way that
you treat the Constitution of the Christian church, and earnestly and
soberly declare that such words as war and peace, taxes and treaties,
are not to be understood among us in their common and ordinary
acceptation, as they are used by other writers, and as we find them
defined in the dictionaries—but that war means want, peace means plenty,
taxes mean tables, and treaties mean troubles? You would expect his
colleagues to call him a fool. Nor would you think more highly of his
wisdom, if he should reply, and defend himself by saying—that it is true
these were common English words, the meaning of which had been fixed and
known for many ages, yet America was a new country, and the Constitution
was designed to usher in a new order of things, and nothing was more
natural than that its framers should use words in some new and unnatural
sense! And yet, this is precisely the manner of reasoning adopted by
grave and reverend =Doctors of Divinity=, when they attempt to expound
the constitution which Christ gave his church. There is not a single
word in the whole Greek language the meaning of which is more definitely
fixed and more perfectly known than that of _baptizo_, and those derived
from it. In any other book but the New Testament, no scholar ever
hesitates about its signification. When Homer speaks of a smith
baptizing a hatchet or huge pole-axe in cold water, to harden it, we
have no difficulty in knowing what he means. We see the smith harden
steel in the same manner now, by plunging it in the water.
“When Herodotus says of the Egyptians, that if they touched a swine,
they went into the river, and baptized themselves with their clothes on,
no scholar doubts they plunged into the water.
“When Diodorus Siculus says of a ship that it was baptized in the sea,
no scholar doubts that he means to say the ship was sunk—merged in the
sea.
“When Plutarch says of the Roman general that he baptized his hand in
blood, no one doubts that he dipped his hand in the blood. And yet you
know that in these, and many similar places, the very same word is used
which is employed in the New Testament to denote the ordinance. You may
take the whole range of Greek literature, up to the very time when the
Gospels were written, and you cannot find one solitary instance in which
these words are used to signify either sprinkling or pouring, nor any
one in which they have not in them the idea of an immersion—literal or
figurative.”
“Yes, Mr. Courtney, but that was classic Greek. The Hebraistic Greek,
spoken and written among the Jews, might have been different.”
“So it might, Professor Jones, but as regards this word, it was not
different, nevertheless. If there was any such thing as Jew Greek, you
would find it in the translation of their own Scripture, made by seventy
learned men of their own nation, and hence called by them the
Septuagint. With this translation the Jews, in our Saviour’s time, were
more familiar than with the original Hebrew. It was this that Jesus
quoted in his discourses. It was this that Matthew, and the other
writers of the New Testament, refer to, and quote as the Law and the
Prophets. This was the Greek which the Jews understood better than any
other. If there was, therefore, any such thing as Hebraistic or Jew
Greek it was in this book. Now, sir, you know very well that the idea of
dipping, expressed by the Hebrew word ‘_tabal_’ is in this Jew Greek
uniformly rendered by ‘_bapto_’ or ‘_baptizo_’—and these words are never
used in any other than their common classical signification.
“And further still, Josephus, who was a Jew, lived among the Jews, and
wrote the history of the Jews, lived and wrote just about the same time
that the authors of the New Testament did, and if they wrote in the ‘Jew
Greek,’ he did so also. He wrote for the same people, at the same time,
and in the same language, and uses the same word again and again, but no
one ever suspected that _he_ meant sprinkling or pouring, or that he
used it in any other than its common, classical sense. He invariably
uses the word to signify sinking, submerging, or dipping. And besides
all this, you will please to remember that the greater part of the New
Testament was written, not for the Jews, but for the _Greeks_, to read,
and, consequently, if the writers did not use Greek words, in their
ordinary Greek sense, they would not be understood—but would, in fact,
convey an absolute falsehood. Mark was written at Rome, for the Italians
and strangers who read the Greek language there. Luke addressed his
Gospel and the Acts to an individual in the Greek nation, for Theophilus
is a Greek name. John was written in the very territory of Greece
itself. It is evident, therefore, that even if there had been a peculiar
_Jewish_ use of the word, the writers of the Gospels could not have
employed it unless they had explained, at the same time, that they did
not use it in its common signification. If I say that I was immersed in
the Cumberland river people who understand English will think I was
plunged beneath the surface of the water—or else that I state what was
not true; because this is the common every-day meaning of the word
immerse in the language to which it belongs. So when these writers say
Christ was baptized in the river Jordan, everybody that read Greek would
understand that he was submerged in the river, for this was the common
every-day meaning of the word baptize in the language to which it
belonged.”
“I must acknowledge, Mr. Courtney,” said the Professor, “there is a
great deal of force in what you say; and I really do not, at this
moment, see how I can set aside your reasoning. I had no idea that so
strong an argument could possibly be made in behalf of immersion. But is
it not true, sir, that there are many places in the New Testament where
the word _cannot possibly_ mean immersion—or where it is at least much
more _probable_ that it means something else?”
“I have no doubt, Professor, that there are a number of places where it
would seem much more _probable_ to you that it has some other meaning,
if it were not that the usage of the language has fixed its meaning to
be immersion. It might seem probable to us that Jesus rode into
Jerusalem on a war-horse, but the meaning of the words employed in
describing his entry compels us to believe that he rode on an ass’s
colt. So, also, it might seem probable that the Pharisees only
_sprinkled_ the couches on which they reclined at their meals, but the
_word_ employed shows that they really immersed them, however improbable
it might seem to one who was not aware of the extreme care which the
superstitious Pharisees employed, lest some part of their furniture
should escape the contact of the water, and so remain in its impurity.
“So, also, when he says that ‘The Pharisees and all the Jews eat not
when they come from market, except they first wash (_immerse_)
themselves.’ It might seem more probable that they only _sprinkled_
themselves, or crossed their foreheads with holy water, or poured some
drops upon the top of their heads: but the words employed declare
expressly that they ‘_immersed_.’ I will not refuse to believe God’s
Word, because he tells me of a circumstance that seems to me
_improbable_. The Scriptures are full of improbable things, but I surely
will not dare to change the meaning of the words used to relate them, in
order to get rid of the improbability.
“This would be worse than infidelity itself. I believe just what God
says, whether it were probable or improbable.
“But now if you tell me that _these things were impossible_, that is
quite a different matter. If any persons or things are said to be
baptized, that _could not possibly have been immersed_, then I must
grant that the Scripture either asserts what is not true, or that it
uses words in a new and unusual sense. Permit me to suggest to you,
Professor, that it would not be an unprofitable study to investigate
this point. Take a Greek Concordance, and turn to every passage where
the word occurs; and if you find any impossibility in admitting the
classical and common meaning, I will be prepared to concede something
when we meet again.”
“I thank you for the suggestion, Mr. Courtney. You have indeed thrown
new light upon this subject. I am just now somewhat bewildered by it. I
will examine more carefully, and tell you my conclusions.”
It was on Monday that this conversation occurred, and Mr. Courtney was
returning home, when he was called by Edwin into Mrs. Ernest’s, to
assist the investigations of Theodosia and Mr. Percy. It was now near
night on Thursday, and he had yet heard nothing further from the
Professor on the subject; but just as he was leaving his school room, a
lad handed him the following note:
“DEAR COURTNEY:—I have been examining, as you suggested, into
the Scripture usage of the word ‘_Baptizo_’ and its cognates. I
am surprised and embarrassed by the results. Difficulties in the
way of sprinkling increase at every step; yet there are also
some difficulties in the way of immersion. Perhaps you can
easily obviate them. I had last evening a very interesting
conversation with my niece on this subject. She feels that she
has been greatly assisted by your advice and suggestions. There
is still, however, one point on which her mind remains in doubt.
It is this. If Christ commanded immersion, and immersion was
practiced by the first churches, how came it to be so
universally discarded, and sprinkling substituted in its place?
This question, I confess, presents a mystery to me also. Will
you do me the kindness to meet me at Mrs. Ernest’s to-night, and
come prepared to enlighten our darkness on this point?
Yours truly,
J. M. JONES.”
This was a subject to which the teacher had recently given considerable
attention, and had collected a number of authorities among Pedobaptist
writers, showing, not only that immersion was at first the universal
practice of all the churches, but also the very time and place when and
where pouring first, and sprinkling afterward, were introduced instead
of it.
He went home, therefore, and, after supper, selected such books as he
thought would be most satisfactory to his inquirers, and took them with
him to the widow’s cottage.
He found Uncle Jones already there, who was not long in beginning the
discussion.
“I see by the pile of books you have brought,” said he, “that you
received my note, and have come prepared to remove, if possible, all our
historical difficulties. Before we enter upon the history of the
ordinance, will you permit me to mention some difficulties in the way of
understanding the word baptize to signify immersion, wherever it occurs
in the New Testament?”
“Certainly; for though I ventured to tell you (when we talked upon this
subject last Monday), that you would not find any _impossibilities_, I
did not even intimate that you would find no _difficulties_. But what
are those which have troubled you?”
“It will perhaps save time if we take up the passages in order. I knew
that _bapto_ and _baptizo_ were derived from the same root, and, in
classical usage, had precisely the same signification, except that
_bapto_, while it signifies to dip, signifies also to dye or color,
which baptizo never does.[2] And I, therefore, found all the places
where these words occur.
“I will first mention those in which there is no direct allusion to the
ordinance, but where the word occurs, as it often does in the Old
Testament, in connection with other subjects.
“Theodosia, get your Testament, child, and read them as I mention them,
according to my memorandum. The first is Luke xvi. 24.
“‘Send Lazarus that he may (baptize) _dip_ the tip of his finger in
water and cool my tongue.’ This seems plain enough; and so does the
second, John xiii. 26, ‘It is he to whom I shall give the sop when I
have (baptized) dipped it; and when he had (baptized) dipped it, he gave
it to Judas.’ Nor did I find any difficulty with the third, Revelation
xix. 13, ‘And he was clothed in a vesture (baptized) dipped in blood.’
But here in the fourth case, or Mark vii. 4, I find a difficulty. ‘The
(baptisms) washing of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and _tables_.’
Now, so far as the cups, and pots, and vessels are concerned, the matter
is made entirely plain by turning to Leviticus xii. 32, ‘Whether it be
any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it
be wherein any work is done, it must be _put into the water_, and it
shall be unclean until evening, and so it shall be cleansed.’ From this
it is evident that the cups and other vessels were immersed, or ‘_put
into the water_:’ but the word translated table, may mean also a couch
or bed, and how the beds and tables could be immersed, I do not so
easily understand.”
“And yet, uncle,” said the young lady, “the same Scripture that speaks
of the immersion or baptism of the cups, speaks also of that of the
tables. Whatever was done to the cups, therefore, was done to the tables
too.”
“Yes, Theo., and that is what makes me doubt if there was any immersion
about it. The cups could have been dipped easily enough, but to dip beds
and tables is quite another business.”
“But, uncle, if ‘putting into the water’ was immersion, must they not
have been immersed?”
“It would seem so, Theo., but I can’t understand how it could be done.”
“The difficulty will all vanish,” said Mr. Courtney “if you will
remember that the little stool to hold his plate which stood at the head
of each guest as he reclined upon the floor, was called a table, and the
mat or cloth which he lay upon, was called a couch or bed; and either of
these could be immersed as readily as the cups. They had no massive
mahogany tables, or beds containing sixty pounds of feathers, as we
have. The poor invalid whom Jesus healed, did not probably evince any
extraordinary muscular power when he _took up his bed_ and walked away
with it.
“But we have other testimony besides that of Mark on the subject. What
if I show you from the writings of a learned Hebrew, that the beds and
tables not only could be immersed, but that their immersion was
habitually practiced by the superstitious Pharisees!”
“That will indeed remove every shadow of doubt,” said the Professor;
“but have you indeed such testimony?”
“Certainly we have. There was a very learned Jew who wrote a very
elaborate commentary on the Jewish customs and traditions. Dr. Adam
Clarke, the great commentator, recognizes his authority, and calls him
the ‘great expounder of the Jewish Law;’ and, as he comes thus ‘properly
vouched for,’ I trust his evidence will not be disputed. This learned
and eminent Rabbi, commonly called Rabbi Maimonides, says, in his
commentary: ‘Every vessel of wood, as a table or bed, receives
defilement, and these were washed _by covering in water_, and very nice
and particular they were,’ he adds, ‘that they might be _covered all
over_.’
“If the article was very large and could not be dipped all at one time,
it could still, according to the teaching of this great expounder, be
easily immersed. For, says he, ‘A bed that is wholly defiled, if he dip
it part by part, it is pure. If he dip it in the pool of water it is
clean, even though its feet are plunged in the thick clay.’
“Perhaps,” continued Mr. Courtney, addressing Theodosia, “your uncle may
find it easier to believe Maimonides than Mark, and if so, the tables
are disposed of.”
“The Rabbi’s explanation does indeed remove all difficulties,” said
Uncle Jones; “but now look at the first part of the verse. ‘The
Pharisees and all the Jews except they wash their hands, eat not; and
when they come from the market, except they (baptize) wash, they eat
not; holding the tradition of the elders.’ Now I can hardly think it
possible that the Jews, whenever they came from market, dipped
themselves all over in water, as the word (_baptisonti_) employed here,
would intimate, if immersion indeed be the meaning of the word. It seems
as though something else would be much more natural and likely to be
done.”
“Suppose it was more likely that they should do something else,” replied
Mr. Courtney, “can you not believe, on the authority of the Word of God,
that the superstitious Jews would do very unlikely, improbable, and
inconvenient things? It cannot be denied that it was just as possible
for them to immerse themselves (_baptisonti_) when they came from
market, as it was to wash their hands (_nipsonti_) on ordinary
occasions, or before meals; but it is very easy to determine what it was
which they actually did, since it was that which was required by the
‘tradition of the elders.’ What, then, was this tradition of the elders?
Maimonides shall enlighten us here again. ‘If the Pharisees,’ says he,
‘touched but the garments of the common people, they were defiled all
over as if they had touched a profluous person, and needed _immersion_,
and were obliged to do it; and hence when they walked the streets, they
walked on the side of the way, that they might not be defiled by
touching the common people. In a laver (they say) which holds forty
seahs of water, every defiled man dips himself.’
“It was, therefore, we see, a veritable immersion which was required by
the ‘tradition of the elders,’ as preserved in their nation and recorded
by one of their most learned Rabbis; and though Doctors of Divinity find
it very hard to believe the plain assertion of the Spirit of God,
speaking by Mark, and fancy there must be some mistake or
misunderstanding when he says the Pharisees immersed themselves; yet I
have never heard that any of them hesitated to receive the uninspired
testimony of the Jewish Rabbi, or proposed to give to his words new and
unheard-of meanings to obviate the necessity of admitting that immersion
was practiced by the superstitious Jews.”
“I am very much obliged to you,” said the Professor, “for laying the sin
of my unbelief at the door of the Doctors of Divinity; and, to tell the
truth, they are in some degree responsible for it, for I am doubtful if
I should have seen these difficulties so plainly had I not looked at
them through the theological microscope of Dr. Miller, of Princeton, New
Jersey. You have disposed of them so easily and so satisfactorily, that
I am almost ashamed to ask you for your opinion about the divers
washings in Hebrews ix. 10. These washings, you know, are in the
original called Baptismois or baptisms—were they not some of the many
sprinklings enjoined upon the Jews by the Levitical law?”
“Surely, my dear sir, if they had been, Paul would have called them
sprinklings. He understood the use of the proper word for sprinkle, for
he uses it in this same connection where he speaks of ‘the ashes of an
heifer sprinkling the unclean.’ The baptisms were evidently something
else, and another and altogether different word is employed to designate
them—one word refers to the _sprinklings_ required by the law, the other
to the _immersions_ which it commanded.”
“But, Mr. Courtney, I have in some way received the impression that the
law nowhere commands any _immersions_. It commands sprinklings and
ablutions, washings and purifications, but never in any case
immersions—so the allusion must be to some other cleansings than to
immersions.”
“Permit me to say, Professor, that you could not have received that
impression from a careful study of the law itself—you are probably
indebted for it to a Doctor of Divinity. Take your Bible, and turn to
the law, and you will read of immersions or _dippings_ in blood—dippings
in blood and running water—dippings in oil—dippings in the water of
purification—and in the practice of the Jews, many, if not most of the
_washings_ mentioned in the law, were performed by _immersion_, though
this was not specifically required by the command. The ten lavers that
Solomon made, were for washing the sacrifices, and these were washed by
_dipping_ them in the water. The great sea which he made, was for the
priests to _bathe_ in, 2d Chron. iv. 6. And this washing was an
immersion. On how many occasions do you read, in the 15th of Leviticus,
that one ‘must wash his clothes, and _bathe_ himself in water?’ Are
clothes washed without _immersion_? The vessels of wood, skin, etc.,
were required to ‘_to be put into the water_’—was not this an immersion?
And if you doubt that the washing or bathing of their persons was
immersion, we will learn from Maimonides what it was that they actually
did in obedience to this law:
“‘In their law,’ says this learned Rabbi, ‘whenever washing of the body
or the clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else than the washing the
_whole_ body; for if any wash himself all over except the very tip of
his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness.’
“That this was what the Jews understood by washing, is further evident
from the case of Naaman. The prophet told him to go and _wash_ seven
times in Jordan; and it was regarded as strict and literal obedience
when he went and ‘_dipped himself_ seven times.’”
“I see, Mr. Courtney, that it is just as easy to find the ‘divers
immersions’ as the ‘sprinklings,’ and I do not see why I should have
been so easily imposed upon. I find I must be careful how I receive the
assertions even of our Doctors of Divinity.”
“Yes, uncle,” said Theodosia, “I have determined that I will find every
thing in the Bible _for myself_. It is the only way in which I can be
certain it is there.”
“We have now,” said Mr. Courtney, “examined every text in the New
Testament where the word is translated, and not merely transferred in
our version. In several of these places we find it is rendered ‘dip,’ as
it is in the fourteen places mentioned by Dr. Barnes, where it occurs in
the Old Testament. In all the other places it is rendered _wash_, and we
have ascertained, in every case, that the washing was by ‘dipping.’”
“But, Mr. Courtney, did not you ascertain this from Rabbi Maimonides,
and not from the Scriptures themselves? I want my faith to stand alone
upon the Word of God.”
“No, Miss Ernest, we learned it from the word of God itself. I quoted
the Jewish Rabbi to satisfy your uncle—because (if he will pardon me for
saying so) he seemed to feel that some human testimony was needful to
sustain the (to him) strange assertion of the Word of God, that the
superstitious Pharisees immersed their tables or couches, and
themselves, but we had abundant proof without the Rabbi’s testimony.”
“What was it, Mr. Courtney?—please call it to my mind again. The Bible
argument is all that I care to remember.”
“You are right, Miss Ernest—it is all you _need_ to remember. You know
we have on former occasions determined the meaning of the word baptism,
by a variety of methods. We found it to be immersion or dipping. Now,
your uncle admitted this, so far as regards _all other books but the New
Testament_. Here he conceived it _might_ have a new signification. I
conceded that it might, but denied that it did; for the fact that a
thing _may_ possibly, or even probably, be true, _is no evidence that it
is true_. Then to show that it _must_ have a new meaning, he referred to
three places where, in our version, it is rendered ‘washing.’ In Mark
vii. 4, he said it seemed unreasonable to think that the Pharisees
immersed their tables and beds (for the word ‘_kleina_,’ rendered
_tables_, may mean couches as well); and therefore he thought he ought
to give the word some other meaning.
“To this I might have merely replied, the Word of God says the ‘kleina’
were immersed, and therefore it was done. I will not take the liberty to
_change_ God’s word because it states improbabilities. But we were very
accommodating, and reminded him that whatever was done to the tables, or
‘kleina,’ was the _same_ thing that was done to the ‘cups’ and other
vessels, and then turned to Leviticus and showed that _they_ were ‘put
into the water,’ and of course the ‘kleina’ were ‘put into the water,’
also. This, I am sure, was proof enough, without going to the Rabbi, to
see _how_ it was done, and this was all Scripture proof. We went to the
Rabbi only to ‘make assurance doubly sure.’ Then your uncle thought it
more reasonable to believe that the Pharisees did something else instead
of dipping themselves (as Mark says) when they came from the market.
“I might have answered as before—God says they _dipped_, and I will not
dare to doubt it, though it be improbable.
“But as the text says, they did it ‘holding the tradition of the
elders.’ I referred to the Jewish Rabbi merely to learn what the
‘tradition of the elders’ required on this point, and we found it was
just what the word expressed.
“In the third place, your uncle had conceived that the _baptismois_ or
washings spoken of in Hebrews ix. 10, could not be immersions, because
some Doctor of Divinity had told him there were no immersions; and we
went back to the Old Testament and found immersions in abundance—even
without those rites which are called ‘washings;’ but even these were
immersions also, as I have proved by the case of Naaman, and referred to
the Rabbi as confirmatory evidence.”
“Very satisfactory, I declare,” said the Professor, laughing. “You see,
Theo., Mr. Courtney fully appreciates the difficulties in the way of
convincing your uncle.
“But let us see what he has to say about these other places which I have
marked, and in which the word is used without translation, and refers
directly to the ordinance itself. The first is Matthew iii. 5, 6, which
reads of the baptism of the multitudes by John.”
“In regard to that,” said Mr. Courtney, “it will not be worth while to
consume our time to-night—I will refer you to Miss Theodosia, who has
examined it already. I will only say, that if you prefer ‘_washing_’ as
your translation of the word, there could be no quicker way for John to
_wash_ them than by dipping them in the water.”
“The next place I have marked,” said Uncle Jones, “is the 11th verse of
the same chapter, ‘I indeed baptize you with water, but he that cometh
after me shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.’”
“I trust you find no difficulty there,” said Mr. Courtney.
“No,” replied the Professor, “except that it presents a strong argument
in favor of immersion. The original certainly reads (if we translate as
we would in any other book), I immerse you in water, and he shall
immerse you in the Holy Ghost and in fire.
“The next is the 16th verse of the same chapter—‘And Jesus, when he was
baptized, went up straightway out of the water.’ I find a strong
argument for immersion in this also; for if they did not immerse, I see
no reason for going into the water—or, if we read that he went up
_from_, instead of out of, the water, I still see no reason for even
going to it. We do not go to the river to sprinkle now—I can’t think
they did then.
“The next place I have marked refers to the ‘much water’ of Ænon, near
Salim; and I think no one can deny that John selected that place for the
convenience of baptizing; and so far as it has any bearing on the case
at all, it favors immersion. No other place presents any difficulty not
already obviated, till we come to the baptism of the three thousand.
Here seemed to be some doubtful circumstances, till I talked the subject
over with my niece last night, but all is now quite plain; but there are
some other instances recorded in the Acts, where immersion does not seem
to have been so probable as sprinkling or pouring.”
“Please don’t speak any more about _probabilities_, Professor Jones,”
exclaimed Mr. Courtney. “You admit that ‘_baptize_,’ the word used to
describe this ordinance, means to immerse, as its common primary
signification in every other book but this, and that the people who read
the Greek language, would understand this to be its meaning in this,
_unless some intimation was given_ that it must _not_ be so understood,
or unless this meaning was morally impossible. And now you say it seems
more probable that sprinkling sometimes occurred. Suppose it were more
probable, does not Luke, by using this word _baptize_, declare that it
was not sprinkling or pouring, but clearly and plainly a dipping? Will
you dare to give the word a meaning that it never had before, and has
not now, in any Greek book in the world, merely because you think it
more probable that something else was done, instead of what Luke says
was done? Show me a case where immersion was impossible, and it will
have some weight.”
“No, no, Mr. Courtney, the New Testament meaning of the word is the very
point in dispute. I shall not allow you to beg the question on the very
position about which we are at issue.”
“I did not intend, nor do I desire to do any such thing. It is no
begging of the question to object to your mode of settling it. This word
was used hundreds of years before Luke wrote this book. Its meaning was
as well fixed and defined as that of any word in the Greek language.
Luke was writing to those who read, and spoke, and understood this
language (and this word among the rest) in its ordinary sense, according
to the familiar every-day usage of the people who employed it.
“We agree, and no critic or scholar of any note has ever denied, that
the common, familiar meaning of this word was to immerse, submerge, to
dip. This we have proved. But now we want to know in what sense Luke
employs it. I answer, that the presumption is, that he employs it just
as every other writer does; for if he does not, nobody will understand
what he means. He must use words in the sense that other people use
them, or other people will not know what he means; but as he wishes to
be understood, and writes under the inspiration of infinite wisdom, he
will use words thus. If this word, therefore, commonly and familiarly
meant to immerse, then it was immersion that he meant when he used the
word. To this you reply, that in some cases it _seems more probable_
that something else was done, and not the act which this word describes;
and you will therefore make it mean just what you think is most likely
to have taken place. I object to this mode of deciding the meaning of a
New Testament word. If we decide according to this rule, I can show you
that Lazarus was never raised from the dead; for it is to me much more
likely that he was only _asleep_, or in a sort of _trance_—and when
Jesus called him with a loud voice, it only awakened him. You tell me,
however, that the Scripture plainly declares, again and again, that he
_was dead_, and that Christ _raised_ him from the _dead_. But I have
only to assure you that, though the word rendered dead does mean
dead—destitute of life—in every other book, and in almost every other
place in this book, yet in this particular place it is much _more
probable_ that it means asleep, or in a trance; and, therefore, dead
cannot mean destitute of life. If I am at liberty to trifle in this way
with any words of the Sacred Record, it ceases to mean any thing but
what I, or you, or any other man may fancy it ought to mean. Every man
may make it mean just what he pleases. But pardon me for talking so
long—I did not intend it when I began. Go on with your references, and I
will show you that there is not even a _probability_ that it was any
thing else but immersion that was performed in any single case.”
“I was,” said Uncle Jones, “just about to mention the case of Paul, who
was baptized ‘standing up,’ and of course, it could not be by immersion,
Acts ix.: ‘And Ananias went his way and entered into the house, and
putting his hand upon him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, who
appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me that thou
mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And
immediately there fell from his eyes, as it had been scales, and he
received sight forthwith, and _arose and was baptized_.’ Now the Greek
word ‘_anastas_’ here rendered _arose_, might very properly be rendered
standing up; and if so, he must have been baptized standing.”
“That, _if so_, Professor, is a very convenient phrase. Let us see how
it will work in other places. We read in the Old Testament that ‘David
arose and fled for fear of Saul.’ The same word occurs here. It may mean
‘standing up;’ and, _if so_, then David _fled standing_. So, also, in
this passage, ‘Saul rose up out of the cave and went.’ It may mean
‘_standing_;’ and, _if so_, then Saul went _standing_ out of the cave.
And in this, ‘Saul _arose_ and got him from Gilgal.’ It may mean
‘standing;’ and, _if so_, then Saul went up from Gilgal ‘standing.’”
“Yes,” said Theodosia, “and when Ananias and Sapphira died that fearful
death, the young men were _standing still_ all the while they were
winding up the body, carrying him away, and burying him; for it reads,
‘The young men arose, wound him up, carried him out, and buried him.’
(Acts v. 6.) Is it not the same word that is used in the original?”
“The very same, Miss Ernest—and so it is where the prodigal son says I
will arise and go to my father—yet he does not mean to say that he will
go ‘standing up.’ If you will be kind enough to get Barnes’ Notes, you
will find a very true and apposite explanation of this word. ‘He _arose_
and went to his father.’ ‘The word _arose_,’ says Barnes, ‘does not
imply that he had been _sitting_. It does not refer to any change of
position, but expresses the act of _setting out_, or _beginning_ to do
any thing. It was a common expression among the Hebrews to denote
_entering upon_ a piece of business.’ Now, if Luke had said, he _sat
still_ and was baptized, it might have made some difficulty; but if he
rose up, or prepared himself, he would do this equally, whether he was
sprinkled or immersed. Immersion is quite as probable, so far as this
word is concerned, as sprinkling, or any thing else.”
“I must acknowledge that you are right,” said Uncle Jones, “and you have
convinced me so often that I am almost ashamed to mention another
difficulty which has been suggested—and that is, that there is nothing
said about a change of garment, or of their going out of the house; and
then Saul was so feeble that it would seem almost cruel to make him walk
half a mile to the river, before he even partook of any food. I judge,
therefore, that the rite must have been performed in the house, and _if
so_, it could not be immersion.”
“There is your ‘_if so_’ again. But suppose it was done in the house,
are you sure that there was not a bathing-tub, or a tank, or some other
means of immersion in the house? There is surely no evidence that there
was not. How do you know that it was half a mile to the river? How do
you know that there was not a fountain in the yard? Most rich men’s
houses in the East are provided with them. You simply read that he ‘was
baptized,’ and every Greek reader would understand this to mean that he
was immersed. If you should come down next Sunday to the Baptist church,
and apply for membership, and be received and baptized—I would, as clerk
of the church, record the facts—I would write that you came, made
credible profession of faith in Christ, gave satisfactory evidence of
genuine conversion, was received and _baptized_. I need not record that
you put on suitable clothing—that you went to the river, or to the pool,
or to the baptizing. Everybody would know that you were immersed, if I
simply said you were ‘baptized.’”
“Well, well, I see I have been making ‘mountains out of mole hills,’ but
really the Doctors of Divinity, as you so kindly suggested a while ago,
have much of the blame to bear. I am almost ashamed to go on with my
catalogue of difficulties, lest I provoke both you and Theodosia to
laugh at me for my simplicity.”
“Far from it, my dear sir. It is not long since I stood just where you
are standing now. I know from sad experience with how much difficulty
the light of truth makes its way through the mists and fogs by which
one’s early education has surrounded him; and how slowly it dispels the
clouds and darkness of long-established prejudices. It is rare indeed to
find any one educated as you were, and accustomed as you have been from
childhood, to think that whoever might be wrong, the Presbyterians
_must_ be right, yet exhibiting the candor to acknowledge error, and the
conscience to repudiate it so soon as it shall be clearly seen. I hope
you will not refrain from expressing even the shadow of a doubt, if it
keeps your mind from seeing clearly the way of Christian duty as
required in God’s Word. What was the next ease on your memorandum?”
“It was that of Cornelius and his friends. Peter says, who shall ‘forbid
water?’ And it seemed to me more natural for him to use this expression,
if the water was to be brought to sprinkle them, than if they were to be
taken to the water to be dipped in it.”
“But,” replied Mr. Courtney, “Peter does not say the water _was to be
brought_. He only says, who will forbid water (that is to be used in the
baptizing of these people)? It was simply equivalent to saying, who will
forbid their baptism? But the water might have been brought to _immerse_
them. What would hinder it? I was present once when a Baptist minister
said to the sexton of the church, ‘Let water be brought for the baptism
of six persons this evening’—would you deny that those six persons were
to be _immersed_? In recording the event, I might have said, the water
was brought, and they were baptized—for they were actually immersed in a
tank prepared for the purpose under the floor of the church. Now, if one
of the deacons had exclaimed, I forbid the water to be brought for the
baptism of these candidates, you must (had you been present and reasoned
as you do upon this passage) have concluded that it was sprinkling, and
not immersion at all, which was spoken of.”
“I am satisfied, Mr. Courtney, and do not see any thing in my next case
(which was that of Lydia and her household) that has not already been
disposed of. I was going to object that there was nothing said about
change of apparel and going to or coming from the water—but I
acknowledge that when I read in a Baptist paper that forty converts were
baptized one Sabbath morning, I do not doubt they were immersed, and yet
I never see a word said about the clothing they wore, and often nothing
about the place where the rite was performed. So I will pass to the
jailor’s baptism, Acts xvi. 33. The only difficulty here is, that as he
was baptized _in the jail_, it is very improbable that it was by
immersion, since it is not likely there was any convenience for an
immersion in an eastern prison.”
“Suppose, Professor Jones, that you should read in a newspaper that ‘The
poor wretch who was last week sentenced to death for the murder of old
Mr. Gripall, had made a profession of religion, and had been baptized by
Elder J. R. Graves, the editor of the _Tennessee Baptist_,’ would you
imagine that Mr. Graves had _sprinkled_ him? Not for one moment; you
could easily believe that the water was brought, and the immersion was
done, in the murderer’s cell, even though not a word was said about the
bringing it. As the jailor was master of the prison, could he not have
water brought, had it been needful?
“But the truth is, the baptism was not done in the jail. Read the
passage carefully He sprang into the prison, and he brought the Apostles
out of it (30th verse). Some say he only brought them _out_ of the
_inner prison_. I say he brought them out of that, and into his own
house, for (32d verse) they spoke the word of the Lord to all that were
in his house. He took them into his family apartments, and there they
preached the Word.
“And then (verse 33d) he took them somewhere else, where he washed their
stripes and was himself baptized; and then (34th verse) he brought them
back into his house, and set meat before them. You see, therefore, that
it was not done in prison, though if it had been, it would have been no
proof that it was not immersion.”
“I wonder,” said Mr. Jones, “that I had never seen the case in this
light before. Now, since I have observed it carefully, it is all very
plain; and I have found no other instance where the word occurs in its
_literal_ sense, and which presents any difficulties which have not been
already considered.
“There is, indeed, the case of the Eunuch, who was baptized by Philip,
but the narrative, in all the details of it, absolutely requires
immersion to preserve the consistency and probability of the story. They
went down into the water, and not the one, but both of them went into
the water. Then Philip immersed him, and then they came up out of the
water. I wonder that any Greek scholar should ever have doubted that
they went into and came out of the water; for, if this is not what is
said, it is because the Greek language could not express it. In any
other book, no scholar would hesitate a moment thus to translate the
passage. What is here said to be done, I must concede is precisely what
Baptists are accustomed to do. And, but for one thing, I am convinced
that _immersion is the only baptism_.”
“And what is that, pray?”
“Simply that I find baptism spoken of _figuratively_ or _metaphorically_
in such a way as to lead me to suspect it must be something else.
Indeed, in Acts ii. 17, it is almost expressly said to be a pouring.”
“No, Professor, baptism is _not_ here said to be pouring, nor is pouring
said to be baptism, though Doctors of Divinity have ventured such
assertions.
“Christ did tell the disciples that they would be immersed in the Holy
Ghost—and Peter did speak of the Holy Spirit as being poured out—but
neither of them said that this pouring was the immersion. It might as
well have been any other of the wonderful things that happened that day,
which could in any respect be compared to an immersion.
“But before we go further, let me say one word as to the value of
figurative usage in determining the meaning of this or any other word.
“Common sense teaches us that the figurative and fanciful must yield to
the real and actual. When, therefore, we have settled the meaning of a
word by its real, literal, every-day usage, we cannot unsettle it by a
figure of speech—a chance allusion or comparison. The fanciful must be
governed by the actual. This is self-evident. Now, we have seen and
settled that the literal meaning of this word is to _immerse_. And
henceforth, whenever and wherever we find it _figuratively_ employed,
the allusion must be in some way or other to immersion or some
circumstance attending immersion. On this alone will its beauty and
appropriateness as a figure depend.
“Now, remembering this, let us examine the case in hand. The allusion
cannot be to ‘the pouring,’ which itself is but a figure—for no literal
and actual pouring of the third person of the Trinity _could_ occur. The
allusion was not to the manner of the Spirit’s coming, but to the
copiousness, abundance, and overwhelming nature of his influences;
filling, overflowing, surrounding, and, as it were, swallowing up their
souls. The Greeks often used the word baptized in this way; as baptized
in debt, baptized in affliction, baptized in wine (that is, overcome of
wine), baptized in iniquity, or as we would express it, _sunk_ in
iniquity. We use the word immerse in the same way, when we say of one
that he is immersed in dissipation; immersed in business; immersed in
politics, and the like; we simply mean by such expressions that the
dissipation, business, or polities, controls and occupies all the powers
and capacities of the man. We do not mean to say that they were _poured_
on him, or _sprinkled_ on him, but only that they exert an overwhelming
influence over him. And just in this sense he told the disciples they
should be immersed in the Holy Ghost.”
“I thank you, Mr. Courtney, for that lucid exposition. I can hardly
understand how the matter came to be so mystified in my mind as it has
been till now. I will trouble you with but one other case, and that is
where the Israelites are said (1 Cor. x. 2) to have been ‘all baptized
unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.’ If this was an immersion, you
must admit that it was a very dry one, for the Scripture says expressly
they went through on dry ground.”
“Certainly, I will admit that it was a dry immersion, for it was a
_figurative_, and not a real one. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, which
we were just speaking of, was a dry immersion. The baptism in
sufferings, which Jesus spoke of so touchingly to James and John, was a
dry immersion. The figure in either case was not in the wetting, but in
the overwhelming abundance of the Spirit in one, and of sorrow in the
other. The allusion in this case is not so much to the _act_, as to one
of the attendant circumstances. They did indeed go down into the sea, as
one goes down into the water to be baptized. The water stood on each
side of them and the cloud covered them—so that they might very
appropriately and beautifully be said, in a figure, to be _immersed_ in
the cloud and the sea. But the chief allusion is to another and
altogether different circumstance. As the Christian, by going down into
the baptismal water, professes his belief in Christ, and takes upon
himself a solemn obligation of obedience to the laws of Christ. So the
Jews, Paul says, by going down into the sea, and walking beneath the
cloud, professed their faith in Moses, and took upon them obligations of
obedience to him. They were thus ‘baptized unto Moses.’ The main
allusion is not to the act, but to the obligation of the ordinance.
Would the figure be any more beautiful, or any more appropriate, if we
should say that they were all sprinkled into Moses, or were all poured
into Moses?
“Professor Stuart, on this passage, says: ‘The suggestion has sometimes
been made that the Israelites were _sprinkled_ by the cloud and by the
sea, and that _this_ was the baptism which Paul meant; but the cloud was
not a rain cloud, nor do we find any _intimation_ that the waters of the
Red Sea sprinkled the children of Israel at that time.’”
“It seems to me,” said Theodosia, “that the idea of rain is absolutely
precluded; for if it had rained upon them to any extent, the ground
would have been _wet_, but it says expressly they went through on _dry
ground_.”
“That would seem to set the matter at rest, Theo., if it were not that
the Psalmist, evidently speaking of this very occasion (Psa. lxxvii. 17,
18), says expressly, ‘The clouds poured out water, the skies sent out a
sound, thine arrows also went abroad; the voice of thy thunder was in
the heaven, the lightnings lightened the world, the earth trembled and
shook.’”
“But the Psalmist does not say, uncle, that these terrible
manifestations of Almighty power were directed against the _Jews_—_they_
went over dry shod. To _them_ all was light and peace. But the cloud
went and stood _behind_ them, and troubled their enemies, the Egyptians.
The thunder, and the lightning, and the great storm of rain were upon
_them_, while the Israelites were passing on dry ground.”
“Well, Theodosia, I give it up. I have no longer any ground to stand
upon; and I may as well admit at once, that _immersion is the only act
which is anywhere in the Bible called a Baptism_. I have, I think, now
examined every place that could throw any light upon the subject; and
really I can’t find even a probability of any other meaning of the word
in _any_ case, while in many this meaning is established by most
overwhelming proof.”
“No, Professor, there is one place you seem to have overlooked, which is
exceedingly significant; that is Romans, 6th chapter, where we are said
to be _buried with Christ in our baptism_. Here the allusion is most
evidently not to any attending circumstance, but to the act itself. We
are buried in the water like one who is dead, and raised out of it again
like one resurrected. So, we are to consider ourselves as having died to
sin, and as having been brought to life again by Christ; but not to the
same life of sin which we led before, but to ‘_newness of life_’—or a
new life—a life of holiness and obedience. That the allusion here is to
the act of immersion is so evident that none but the most determined and
unreasonable cavilers pretend to deny it. I do not know of any single
commentator, whose opinions are entitled to any respect, who has
ventured to differ in regard to this point from Luther, and Calvin, and
Doddridge, and McKnight, and Chalmers—who all agree that the allusion is
to the ancient form of baptism by immersion, or, as McKnight expresses
it, to the ordinance in which Christ submitted to be baptized—that is,
to be buried under the water, and taken out again by John,” etc. (See
notes on this place.)
“I see,” said Uncle Jones. “The Scriptures do not even leave ‘a loop to
hang a doubt upon.’ The common and every-day use of the word requires
immersion—the scriptural, and especially the New Testament usage of the
word, requires immersion—the places where the baptisms were performed
required immersion, for why else would they go into the water?—and even
the figures and metaphors drawn from the ordinance demand immersion.
What shall we say then? Must we not be immersed?”
“I can only answer for myself, uncle. If it was immersion which Jesus
Christ, my Saviour, submitted to in Jordan, and which he commanded all
his disciples to teach and to practice, I cannot hesitate about whether
I will obey my Saviour—I shall be immersed the first convenient
opportunity.”
“I cannot yet speak so confidently,” rejoined her uncle. “It may be,
something will yet turn up to show the matter in some other light. I
must take more time to consider, and this reminds me that we have not
yet examined the history of the ordinance to see whether it is true in
fact that sprinkling has been substituted for immersion, or whether,
after all, it was not immersion that was substituted for sprinkling. I
am under the impression that these Baptists are the same sect that
sprung up about the time of Luther and the Reformation—sometimes called
Anabaptists, but more frequently the Mad Men of Munster. I grant I have
not investigated the subject very carefully, but I am certain I have
somewhere seen or heard their origin in Europe traced back to that
occasion, and in this country I have been told they owe their beginning
to Roger Williams, who was not properly baptized himself, and
consequently could not give valid baptism to any one else. Am I not
right in these conjectures, Mr. Courtney?”
Mr. Courtney did not reply until after he had taken out his watch and
observed the time of night. “It is too late,” said he, “to answer that
question and others which will be suggested by it, to-night. Suppose we
postpone the further consideration of the subject till another time.”
“Very well,” said Theodosia, who felt that she had sufficient food for
one day’s reflection in what had already passed. “Come round, both of
you, to-morrow night. Come early and take supper with us; and meantime,
Mr. Courtney, you may leave this great armful of old books. May be, I
will indulge my womanly curiosity by reading their titles. I don’t
believe I have much relish for their contents, unless they should be
vastly more attractive than their external appearance indicates. Why,
some of them look as though they might be a hundred and one years old.”
“Old documents are sometimes very valuable,” said he, “especially in
such a discussion as we are to have to-morrow night. You will be more
interested in them than you imagine.”
THE SIXTH NIGHT’S STUDY.
In which the question, how Christ’s ordinance was changed, and pouring
first, and then sprinkling, substituted in place of immersion, is fully
examined, and truthfully answered, by the sprinklers themselves.
Sixth Night’s Study.
The interest which so learned and excellent a Presbyterian as Uncle
Jones had exhibited in the study of Baptism, together with affection for
her lovely daughter, had so far removed Mrs. Ernest’s objections to this
investigation, that she had resolved herself to be present, and take
some quiet part in the conversation, upon the introduction of
sprinkling. Uncle Jones she knew was a sincere and pious man. He was
also a man of good sense, sound judgment, and of very extensive
information. And (more than all to her) he was a _Ruling Elder_ in the
Presbyterian Church. If, therefore, Uncle Jones had ventured to _doubt_
about _his_ baptism, she began to think her daughter could not have
committed any very _deadly_ sin in doubting about hers. And, as Uncle
Jones had spoken very highly of the logical acumen and historical
information of Mr. Courtney, she could not see why she should not treat
him with such courtesy as was due to an intelligent gentleman, even
though he was a poor Baptist schoolmaster. As for his prejudices, which
had led him to speak so disrespectfully of the Doctors of Divinity and
eminent ministers of “our church”—he had probably received them in his
childhood, for she had no doubt he had been reared among the ignorant
and bigoted Baptists, who never knew any better, and from whom nothing
better could be expected.
When Mr. Courtney came in, therefore, she was the first to welcome him,
and express her pleasure that he had come so early. She exerted herself
to entertain him till Theodosia came in, and then went to prepare a nice
dish which had just come into her mind for supper. It was not long till
the Professor came also; but not a word was said about the object of
their meeting till after the table was removed—when Mr. Courtney
introduced it by saying:
“If I did not misunderstand you, Professor Jones, you expressed some
doubt last evening whether immersion was not first introduced as baptism
by the Mad Men of Munster during the Reformation of Luther; and whether
the Baptists of the United States did not receive baptism from Roger
Williams, who was himself not properly baptized, and therefore could not
legally baptize others.”
“This is my impression, sir. I do not know exactly how I received
it—perhaps I got something of it from reading D’Aubigne’s History of the
Reformation—perhaps I received it by hearing something of the kind from
the pulpit. I am certain that I have seen or heard it somewhere, and
that I thought at the time I had good authority for believing
it—otherwise, I should not have given it a place in my memory.”
“I have,” replied Mr. Courtney, “seen and heard such statements many
times from various sources. They are often recorded in Presbyterian and
Methodist newspapers. They form a part of every controversy on the
subject of baptism; and you may hear them almost as often as you hear a
sermon or listen to a discussion on this subject. It was consequently
very easy for you to receive and retain such impressions.”
“And yet I suppose you will assure me that I am altogether mistaken, and
have been grossly deceived.”
“No, Professor Jones, _I will not assure you_. I do not like that mode
of discussion. I will _prove_ to you: (if you will receive the testimony
of the _most reliable historians_, or that of the most eminent of _your
own writers_ on this subject); I will prove to you beyond all
possibility of doubt that those who make such statements are either most
grossly ignorant or most perversely false.”
“I hope, Mr. Courtney, you don’t mean to say that _our ministers_ preach
falsehood, or that _our religious_ editors make statements that are not
true?” said Mrs. Ernest, who already felt her blood begin to boil.
“No, no, sister,” said Uncle Jones, who knew her mood. “Mr. Courtney
only means to say that our ministers and editors _are mistaken_, and
that he can prove that they have made statements without having first
carefully examined _all_ the evidence.”
“Pardon me, madam,” said Mr. Courtney, “I did not intend to use any
language which would give offence to any one present, and most
especially to you. I was myself for many years a Presbyterian. I know
the ministers of that order too well to doubt that, as a body, they are
in knowledge and piety equal to any in the world. There are among them
many who are now my warmest personal friends—men whom I love as
Christian brethren—men whom I admire as great and valiant soldiers of
the cross—men who love Jesus, and are devoting their lives to his work,
and are doing great good in the world. And yet there are among them men
who, upon this subject, rashly venture to make assertions which most
clearly and directly contradict all historical testimony, and which, if
there is any _truth_ in history, must be admitted to be false.”
“How can that be possible?” asked Theodosia. “How can a good man _dare_
to say what is not _strictly true_?”
“I do not doubt, Miss Ernest, that most of them really _believe_ what
they assert. They are themselves deceived. They have been trained and
educated in error. They have trusted to the assertions of others, who
had an interest in deceiving them. They get impressions, just as your
uncle did, from books, or papers, or lectures, or sermons, in which such
statements are made. They take it for granted they are true—and so
repeat them to others—and extend and perpetuate the falsehood, which
would at once be evident, if they would go behind these statements and
examine the _historical records for themselves_.
“It is, in part, for this reason, that I do not ask you to take _my
word_ for any fact to which I may request your attention. Nor will I ask
you to receive the testimony of any _Baptist_ historian; you shall have
the record to read for yourselves, and that record made _in every
instance_ by an opposer of our poor and despised denomination. I will
prove to you, first, that the Baptists in Europe did not originate at
the time of the Reformation, but had existed from the very foundation of
Christianity; and then I will show you that the Baptists in the United
States do not owe their origin to Roger Williams, any more than they do
to Lord Baltimore or Cotton Mather; and that the validity of their
ordinance stands on much safer ground, in point of regular succession
from the Apostles, than that of any of the Pedobaptist sects.”
“That is right, Mr. Courtney,” said Uncle Jones; “let us have one thing
at a time. Bring up your witnesses.”
“Well, I have them ready. But first, let us understand distinctly the
point on which we are at issue. You understand that the Baptist
denomination sprang up as a new thing about the time of the Lutheran
Reformation, and owes its origin to those who were then called
‘Anabaptists, or the Mad Men of Munster?’”
“Yes; that was my impression.”
“Very well. Now I will show you that this is so far from being true,
that there has been, from the _very earliest ages_ of Christianity up to
the present time, a body of professing Christians who have always held,
as we do now, that baptism is not valid unless it be preceded by
instruction and _faith in Christ_; and, consequently, that the _baptism
of infants is no baptism at all_.
“I grant that this _body of Christian people_ has not always been
_called_ Baptists; but as they possessed the distinguishing
characteristics of the Baptists, it cannot be denied that they _were_
Baptists.”
“No,” said Uncle Jones, “if they were professing Christians, and gave
evidence of the new birth, baptized only by immersion, and refused to
baptize infants, or recognize such baptism as valid, they were doubtless
Baptists, by whatever name they chanced to be called.”
“Then we are ready to proceed with the case. The first witness I will
call is the celebrated ecclesiastical historian, John Lawrence Mosheim,
Chancellor of the University of Gottingen. He was, of course, _no
Baptist_, or he could not have held such a position. His history was
originally written in Latin, but has been translated into English by Dr.
McLaine, of England, and Dr. Murdock, in America. This learned and
reliable historian says: ‘The sacrament of baptism was administered, in
this (the first) century, without the public assemblies, in places
appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by an
_immersion of the whole body_ in the baptismal font.’
“Of the second century, he says: ‘The persons that were to be baptized,
after they had repeated the creed, confessed and renounced their sins,
and particularly the devil and his pompous allurements, were _immersed
under water_, and received into Christ’s kingdom.’ No sprinkling, and no
infants, you see, thus far. They were such as could profess their faith,
and they were ‘immersed under the water.’ _McLaine’s Mosheim_, vol. p.
46–69.
“As a witness of somewhat similar character, I will now introduce the
Pedobaptist Neander, whose ‘Church History’ and his ‘Planting and
Training of the Christian Church,’ have given his name a world-wide
celebrity.
“This eminent and reliable historian, in a letter to Mr. Judd, says,
expressly, ‘The practice of immersion was beyond doubt prevalent in the
_whole church_. The only exception was made with the _sick_—hence called
_baptisma clinicorum_.’
“And in ‘Planting and Training of the Christian Church,’ he says: ‘The
unusual form of submersion at baptism practiced by the Jews, was
transferred to the Gentile Christians. Indeed, this form was most
suitable to signify that which Christ intended to render an object of
contemplation by such a symbol, viz.: the immersion of the whole man in
the spirit of a new life.’
“So also says Coleman, another noted Pedobaptist author, the friend and
exponent of Neander, who is regarded as high authority by the opponents
of the Baptists, and who takes frequent occasion to express his aversion
to their faith and practice—yet a regard for the obvious truth compels
him to say, page 372, ‘Ancient Christianity Exemplified.’ ‘The term
baptism is derived from the Greek word _Bapto_, from which term is
formed _Baptizo_, with its derivatives _Baptismos_ and
_Baptisma_—baptism. The primary signification of the original is to dip,
to plunge, immerse. The obvious import of the noun is immersion.’
“Yet, in another place, he _affects_ to regard immersion as a departure
from the apostolic usage:
“‘We cannot resist the conclusion,’ he says, ‘that this mode of baptism
was the first departure from the teaching and example of the Apostles on
this subject.’ ‘_If it was_ a departure from their teachings, it was the
_earliest_—for baptism by immersion, unquestionably, was _very early_
the common mode of baptism.’
“Again, page 396, he says: ‘In the Primitive Church, immediately
subsequent to the age of the Apostles, this [immersion] was undeniably
the common mode of baptism. (The utmost that can be said of sprinkling
in that early period is, that it was in case of necessity _permitted_ as
an exception to a general rule). This fact is so well established that
it were needless to adduce authorities in proof of it.… It is a great
mistake to suppose that baptism by immersion was discontinued when
infant baptism became generally prevalent. The practice of immersion
continued even to the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Indeed it has
_never_ been formally abandoned, but is still the mode of administering
infant baptism in the Greek Church, and in several of the Eastern
Churches.’
“Here, also, is another Pedobaptist historian, Dr. Philip Schaff,
Professor in a Pedobaptist Theological Seminary at Mercersburg,
Pennsylvania. In his ‘History of the Apostolic Church,’ page 568, he
says: ‘Immersion, and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original
normal form [of baptism]. This is shown by the very meaning of the Greek
words _Baptizo_, _Baptisma_, and _Baptismos_—used to designate the rite.
Then again, by the analogy of the baptism of John, which was performed
in the Jordan [“_en_”], Matt. iii. 6, compare with 16; also, _eis ton
Jordanan_ [into the Jordan], Mark i. 9; furthermore, by the New
Testament _comparisons_ of baptism with the passage through the Red Sea,
1 Cor x. 2; with the _flood_, 1 Peter ii. 21; with a _bath_, Eph. v. 36;
Titus iii 5; with a _burial and resurrection_, Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12;
and, finally, by the general usage of Ecclesiastical antiquity, which
was _always_ immersion, as it is to this day in the Oriental, and also
in the Græco Russian Churches, pouring and sprinkling being substituted
only in cases of urgent necessity, such as sickness and approaching
death.’”
“Are you _sure_, Mr. Courtney, that these learned historians were not
Baptists?”
“Most certainly I am. Their church connections are as well known almost
as their histories. But even if they _had_ been Baptists, I do not see
how that would invalidate their testimony. I hope you do not think that
Baptists cannot tell the truth as well as other people?”
“Oh, no, Mr. Courtney, forgive me—1 did not mean that; but it seems to
me so _very strange_ that good men can say such things in their
writings, and yet act as though they did not believe a single word of
what they say. But perhaps the _first_ historians of the church, from
whom these men have borrowed their statements, were Baptists.”
“Yes, Miss Ernest, the first historians and earliest writers on the
customs and practices of the Apostolic Churches _were_ Baptists. And it
is to them we are really indebted for _all_ our knowledge of the
earliest ages. Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John, were Baptists—or
else they might never have told us about those baptisms in the river.
Baptists tell about such things now. Paul was a Baptist, or he would
never have compared baptism to a burial and resurrection. Peter was a
Baptist, or he would never have compared it to the flood. All those New
Testament saints were Baptists, as we have seen in our examination of
the meaning of the _word_ baptize. The very word made them Baptists.
They could not be any thing else; and, after their day, the _Fathers_
(as they are called), that is, the earliest writers among the
Christians, whose works have come down to us, were all Baptists. It was
near three hundred years before there were any professed Christians who
were _not Baptists_.”
“On what authority do you venture such an assertion?” asked Uncle Jones.
“I might say,” replied the schoolmaster, “that I make it on the
authority of your own most eminent and most reliable historians. I have
it over the signatures of Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Dutch
Reformed, and Presbyterian writers, who, while they have been in full
connection with those very establishments, all of which have (when they
could) been the most virulent and cruel _persecutors_ of the Baptists,
and some of which are _even now_ subjecting our brethren in Europe to
fines and imprisonment, and confiscation of property, because they will
not conform to the corrupt and corrupting superstitions which have been
substituted by Popish authority for the ordinances of Christ—have
nevertheless openly, plainly, and repeatedly declared, as historians,
that the apostolic churches were, in their membership, ordinances,
organization, and government, just such as the Baptist churches are now.
I say, I might give this authority; but I will refer you to the same
source from which they, as historians, derived their information. I say
the Christian Fathers, for the first three centuries, were Baptists,
because these Fathers say so themselves.
“_Justin Martyr_, who is counted among the earliest of the Fathers,
writing to the Emperor, and giving him an account of the churches in his
day, about one hundred and fifty years after Christ, says: ‘I shall now
lay before you the manner of dedicating ourselves to God through Christ
upon our conversion; for, should I omit this, I might not seem to deal
sincerely in this account of our religion. As many as are persuaded and
believe that those things which are taught by us are true, and do
promise to live according to them, are directed, first, to pray, and ask
God, with fasting, the forgiveness of their sins. And we also pray and
fast together with them. _Then we bring them to a place where there is
water_, and they are regenerated in the same way that we are
regenerated, for they are washed in the name of the Father,’ etc.
“_Tertullian_, who lived somewhat later, says: ‘When we are ready to
enter into the water (and even before), we make our protestations before
the minister and in the church, that we renounce the devil and all his
pomps and vanities—afterward, we are _plunged_ in the water.’
“And again, ‘Those who are desirous to dip themselves holily in this
water, must prepare themselves for it by fasting, by watchings, by
prayer, and by sincere repentance for sin.’
“But it is needless to multiply authorities. It is the united testimony
of _all_ the Fathers who speak of the subject at all, that baptism was
in these early ages performed only by immersion, except of necessity in
the near prospect of death. And those who, under such circumstances,
received pouring as a _substitute_, were never said to have been
baptized, but to have been _poured_ upon as a _substitute_ for baptism.
“How any man, who has any character to lose, can in the face of all this
testimony venture the assertion that sprinkling was practiced in the
early churches, and that immersion is a modern invention introduced by
the Mad Men of Munster, is more than I can comprehend,” said Mr.
Courtney. “Merle D’Aubigne, the Historian of the Reformation, the very
man to whom the Munster Men are indebted for most of their present
notoriety—D’Aubigne does not venture any such assertion. On one point,
he says, ‘It seems necessary to guard against misapprehension. Some
persons imagine that the Anabaptists of the time of the Reformation, and
the Baptists of our day, are the same. But they are as different as
possible.… It is but justice to observe that the Baptists of Holland,
England, and the United States (says Fessenden, as quoted by D’Aubigne),
are essentially distinct from those seditious and fanatical individuals
above-mentioned, as they profess an equal aversion to the principles of
the rebellion of the one, and the enthusiasm of the other.’—Pref. to
Hist. of Ref, p. 10. But I find I am summing up on the case before I
have introduced all the evidence. I have referred to historians; I wish
now to call your attention to the testimony of several of the most
eminent and learned _theological_ authors—writing, not as historians,
but as theological disputants.
“I will first introduce Professor Moses Stuart, Who was a citizen of our
own country, and an eminent professor in one of your own theological
seminaries.
“Here is his book. It was written in answer to the question addressed to
him by missionaries in a foreign land, inquiring in what way they should
translate the Greek words which in our version read _baptize_ and
_baptism_. It was evidently written with great care, and not without
much previous study of the subject.
“After referring to a number of eminent and reliable historians in
regard to the practice of the early church, he thus concludes: ‘But
enough—it is a thing made out,’ says Augusti, viz.:—the ancient practice
of immersion. So, indeed, all the writers who have thoroughly
investigated this subject conclude.
“‘I know of no one usage of ancient times,’ continues Mr. Stuart, ‘which
seems to be more clearly and more certainly made out. _I cannot see how
it is possible for any candid man who examines the subject to deny
this._’
“‘In what manner then,’ he asks (p. 362), ‘did the churches of Christ
from a very early period (to say the least), understand the word
_baptizo_ in the New Testament? Plainly they construed it as meaning
immersion.’
“‘We are left in no doubt,’ he says again, ‘about the generally received
usage of the Christian church down to a period several centuries after
the apostolic age.’
“Can any testimony be more explicit, or more satisfactory than this?
“But even Dr. Miller himself, the great champion of Presbyterianism, on
this subject declares, ‘That it is not denied that for the first few
centuries after Christ, the most common mode of administering baptism
was by immersion.’”
“Oh, that is enough, Mr. Courtney,” said the young lady. “After such
declarations by the most eminent historians, and our own theological
professors, I am sure neither Uncle Jones nor any one else can entertain
a shadow of a doubt. We will admit that the practice of the first church
was immersion. I was satisfied of that from the Scripture itself, since
this was the meaning of the word, and consequently it was immersion that
Christ commanded. What I desire to know is, how the _change_ was brought
about, and sprinkling introduced.”
“All in good time, Miss Ernest, we will come to that presently. Have a
little patience. These theological discussions are very tricky affairs.
I want to set this point so far beyond all doubt or disputation that no
one will dare again to intimate that the Baptists originated in the time
of Martin Luther.
“Here is what Martin Luther says about it himself. No Protestant will
doubt that he is a competent witness. ‘The word _baptize_ is a Greek
word. It may be rendered immersion, _as when we plunge something in
water that it may be entirely covered with water_—and though that custom
is _now abolished_ among the generality (for even children are not
entirely immersed, but only have a little water poured on them),
nevertheless they ought to be completely immersed, and immediately drawn
out, for the etymology of the word requires it.’
“Here also is what John Calvin, the very father and founder of the
Presbyterian denomination, says: ‘From these words (John iii. 23), it
may be inferred that baptism was administered by John and Christ by
plunging the whole body under the water. Here we perceive how baptism
was administered _among the ancients, for they immersed the whole body
in water_.’
“Here is also Dr. Whitby, a very learned and eminent divine of the
Church of England: ‘Immersion,’ says he, ‘was religiously observed by
all Christians for THIRTEEN CENTURIES, and was approved by the Church of
England. And,’ he continues, ‘since the change of it into sprinkling was
made without any allowance from the AUTHOR of the institution, or any
license from any Council of the Church [of England], being that which
the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup to the
laity: it were to be wished that this custom [immersion] might be again
of general use.’
“This musty looking old volume is ‘The History of the Bible, by Thomas
Stackhouse, Vicar of Beenham, in England,’ a celebrated Episcopal
clergyman. He says: ‘We nowhere read in Scripture of any one’s being
baptized but by immersion—and several authors have proved; from the acts
of councils and ancient rituals, that this manner of immersion continued
as much as possible to be used for thirteen hundred years after Christ.’
“The celebrated Prelate, Bishop Taylor, of the English Church,
Vice-Chancellor of the University of Dublin, says in his famous work
called ‘Ductor Dubitantium:’ ‘The custom of the Ancient Churches was not
sprinkling, but immersion, in pursuance of the meaning of the word
baptize in the commandment, and the example of our blessed Saviour.’
“Here also is what that earnest-hearted man, Richard Baxter (the author
of the ‘Call to the Unconverted’ and the ‘Saints’ Rest’), says: ‘It is
commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists, as our commentators
declare, that in the Apostles’ times the baptized were dipped over head
in water.’”
“Oh, please, Mr. Courtney, don’t read us any more such testimony. Any
one who would not be convinced by what you have given us, would not
believe if you should give us ten times more. Do you pray go on, and
show how, and where, and by what authority Christ’s ordinance was
changed.”
“No, no, Mr. Courtney—I want to hear all the proof you have. Never mind
Theodosia—girls always are impatient,” said the mother. “I wish Mr.
Johnson was here, so we could know what he thinks about these
statements, though as for that, I suppose brother Jones knows nearly as
much about it as a preacher.”
“Excuse me, Miss Theodosia—I will not detain you much longer on this
point; I have only a few other witnesses whose testimony I will urge at
_this time_, though there is scarcely a historian of the early days of
Christianity, who does not furnish us with proof. Not many years since,
the King of Holland appointed two very learned and able men, one a
Professor of Theology in the University of Groningen, and the other
Chaplain to the King, to examine into the origin and history of the
Dutch Baptists. They wrote out the result of their investigations and
published the work at Breda, in 1819. In this volume, prepared by these
two learned members of the Dutch Reformed Church, Dr. Ypeig and Dr. J.
J. Durmont, the authors, after tracing up the history of the Baptists,
make use of the following remarkable language:
“‘We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called
Anabaptists, and, in later times, Mennonites, were the original
Waldenses, and who have long, in the history of the Church, received the
honor of that origin. ON THIS ACCOUNT, THE BAPTISTS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS
THE ONLY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY WHICH HAS STOOD SINCE THE DAYS OF THE
APOSTLES, AND AS A CHRISTIAN SOCIETY WHICH HAS PRESERVED PURE THE
DOCTRINE OF THE GOSPEL THROUGH ALL AGES. The perfectly correct external
and internal economy of the Baptist denomination tends to confirm the
truth, disputed by the Romish Church, that the Reformation brought about
in the sixteenth century was in the highest degree necessary, and at the
same time GOES TO REFUTE THE ERRONEOUS NOTION OF THE CATHOLICS THAT
THEIR COMMUNION IS THE MOST ANCIENT.’
“Such was the impression which this truthful document made upon the
Court, that the Government of Holland offered to the Baptist Churches
the support of the State, which was politely but firmly declined, as
inconsistent with their principles.
“The celebrated Bishop Bossuet says: ‘We are able to make it appear by
the acts of councils and by ancient rituals, that for more than thirteen
hundred years, baptism was administered by immersion throughout the
whole church as far as possible.’” “Now, if you have any further doubt,
I will bring up these very acts of councils, and authentic copies of
these same ancient rituals. They are still on record, and it is not
difficult to avail ourselves of their explicit testimony.”
“Oh, no, Mr. Courtney: these historians and preachers, and bishops, were
none of them Baptists. We all know that, and if the facts had not
compelled them, they would, of course, never have made assertions so
injurious to their own cause, and so directly opposed to their own
practice. If they say that baptism was done by immersion for thirteen
hundred years, of course it must have been so. If Mosheim and Neander,
Bossuet and Taylor, Coleman and Whitby, Stackhouse and Baxter, all
sprinklers themselves and all opposed the Baptists, make such
statements, and even Drs. Miller and Stuart, our own most eminent
writers on the subject, admit their truth, why need we spend any more
time?”
“But what then becomes of your uncle’s opinion, that the Baptists
originated about the year 1530, with the Mad Men of Munster?”
“Oh, I have given up that opinion (which indeed was not more than an
impression) some half an hour ago. The testimony is irresistible.
Immersion was most unquestionably the practice of the early churches;
but I am now, like Theodosia, exceedingly anxious to know how it came to
be universally displaced, and sprinkling universally adopted in its
place.”
“You are mistaken, Professor Jones, if you imagine that this change is
by any means a _universal_ one. It was made by the authority of the
Pope, and is confined to the Roman Catholic Church and its descendants.
The Eastern churches—comprising a vast number of professing
Christians—have never adopted sprinkling, but continue to practice
immersion to the present day; and as Professor Stuart truly states, call
the Western churches ‘sprinkled Christians,’ by way of derision. If you
have any doubt of this, I will prove it to you by the testimony of your
own writers of most unquestionable authority.”
“Oh, no, Mr. Courtney, I do not doubt it. You have convinced me so
often, that I am now willing to take your word for any thing you please
to assert.”
“I thank you, Professor; but still I do not like to deal in assertions.
In regard to this point, however, the proof will come in by the
way—together with that on the time and manner of the change.”
“Do, then, Mr. Courtney, go on With that,” said the young lady “You
don’t know how provoking it is to be kept so long in suspense.”
“Well, here is the testimony. I will leave the story to be told by some
of the most celebrated members of the sprinkling churches. You will, of
course, not doubt their truthfulness. Here is the Edinburgh
Encyclopædia, edited by the learned and celebrated Sir David Brewster.
Let us read what he says on the subject. In the Article on Baptism:
“‘The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the following manner:
Pope Stephen II., being driven from Rome by Astolphus, King of Lombards,
in 753, fled to Pepin, who a short time before had usurped the crown of
France. While he remained there, the Monks of Cressy, in Brittany,
consulted him whether, in case of necessity, baptism performed by
pouring water on the head of the infant would be lawful. Stephen replied
that it would. But though the truth of this fact should be allowed,
which, however, some Catholics deny, yet pouring or sprinkling was
admitted _only in cases of necessity_. It was not till the year 1311,
that the Legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion
or sprinkling to be indifferent. In this country (Scotland), however,
sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases, till after the
Reformation; and in England, even in the reign of Edward VI., immersion
was commonly observed. But during the persecution of Mary, many persons,
most of whom were Scotchmen, fled from England to Geneva, and there
greedily imbibed the opinions of that church. In 1556, a book was
published at that place containing the form of prayers and ministration
of sacraments, approved by the famous and godly learned man, John
Calvin, in which the administrator is enjoined to take water in his hand
and lay it on the child’s forehead. These Scottish exiles, who had
renounced the authority of the Pope, implicitly acknowledged the
authority of Calvin; and returning to their own country with John Knox
at their head, in 1559, established sprinkling in Scotland. From
Scotland, this practice made its way into England in the reign of
Elizabeth, but was not authorized by the established church.’”
“Do let me look at that book a moment,” said the Professor. “It is very
strange that I should have been told, as I am sure I have been by some
of the learned clergy of our church, that sprinkling was what was
practiced from the earliest ages, and that immersion was attempted to be
introduced in its place by the Anabaptists of Germany about the year
1530—when in fact immersion had been always the practice, and it was
sprinkling that was substituted by John Calvin, the founder of our
church. _Can it be possible that Doctors of Divinity will impose such
falsehoods on their people in order to sustain the practice of the
church?_ I cannot understand it.”
“Perhaps you want more testimony before you can believe it,” said Mr.
Courtney; “and here is ample confirmatory proof in the plain and
explicit declarations of the famous Dr. Wall.”
“Please tell me,” said Theodosia, “who was Dr. Wall? I have often heard
of him, and I know that he wrote one or more books on baptism, but
whether on our side or yours, I have never been informed.”
“Dr. Wall,” said Mr. Courtney, “was a minister of the Episcopal, or
English Church, and after the publication of his work, the satisfaction
it gave was so great, that in a general convocation of the Episcopal
clergy, held February 9th, 1706, it was ordered ‘that the thanks of this
house be given to Mr. Wall, Vicar of Shoreham, in Kent, for the learned
and excellent book he has lately written concerning infant baptism.’”
“Then he must have written against the Baptists, if his work was
approved by the clergy of the Episcopal Church.”
“Of course he did, and his book is considered to this day the ablest
defence of infant baptism with has ever been written.”
“Well, what does he say about the introduction of sprinkling? Does he
agree with the Encyclopædia, which you have read? Where is the passage
which speaks of it? Please read it for us.”
“‘France seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism
by affusion was used, ordinarily, to persons in health, and in the
_public_ way of administering it. It being allowed to _weak_ children
(in the reign of Queen Elizabeth) to be baptized by aspersion, many fond
ladies and gentlemen first, and then, by degrees, the common people,
would obtain the favor of the priest to have their children _pass_ for
weak children, too tender to endure dipping in the water. As for
_sprinkling_, properly so called, it was at 1645 just _then beginning_,
and used by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly times after
forty-one. They (the Assembly of Divines in Westminster) re-formed the
font into a basin. This learned Assembly could not remember that fonts
to baptize in had been _always used by the primitive Christians_ long
before the beginning of Popery, and ever since churches were built; but
that sprinkling, for the purpose of baptizing, was really introduced (in
France first, and then in _other Popish_ countries) in times of Popery,
and that, accordingly, _all those countries in which the usurped power
of the Pope is, or has formerly been owned_, HAVE LEFT OFF DIPPING OF
CHILDREN IN THE FONTS; but that all other countries in the world which
had never regarded his authority, do still use it; and that basins (to
sprinkle out of) except in cases of necessity, were never used by
Papists, or any other Christians whosoever, till by themselves.’—_Hist.
of Infant Baptism_, part 2d, chap. 9.
“This,” said Mr. Courtney, “is Dr. Wall’s account of the first
introduction of sprinkling; and you see that it confirms the truth of
what I told you, that it was introduced by Popery, and is confined to
the countries where Popery prevails, or has prevailed. The Protestant
sects borrowed it from the Catholics. Now look at page 403 of this other
volume, by the same author, and read the passage I have marked.
“‘The way that is ordinarily used, _we cannot deny to have been a
novelty_, brought into this Church (the English) by those that had
learned it at Germany, or at Geneva. And they, not contented to follow
the example of pouring a quantity of water (which had there been
introduced instead of immersion), but improved it (if I may so abuse
that word) from pouring to sprinkling, _that it might have as little
resemblance to the ancient way of baptizing as possible_.’—_Def. of
Hist. of Infant Baptism_, p. 403.
“If you consult the Edinburgh Encyclopædia the British Encyclopædia, and
the Encyclopædia Americana, article Baptism, you will find a complete
history of the whole subject, the truthfulness of which you will feel no
disposition to question. You will there learn that in England the
Westminster Assembly of Divines had a warm discussion whether immersion
or sprinkling should be adopted. But by the earnest efforts of Dr.
Lightfoot, who had great interest in the Assembly, sprinkling was
adopted by a majority of _one_. The vote stood—twenty-four for
immersion, and twenty-five for sprinkling. This was 1643 years after
Christ. The next year an Act of Parliament was passed, requiring the
parents of all children born in the realm to have them sprinkled; and in
1648, some four years afterward, an Ecclesiastical Council, held at
Cambridge, Massachusetts, adopted sprinkling in the place of immersion;
and, in May of the same year, the Legislature of that State passed a law
making it a penal offence for any one to _say_ that infant sprinkling
was not good and valid baptism.”
“That is surely sufficient,” said Uncle Jones, “to satisfy any candid
mind, but yet I can hardly believe it, for very astonishment.”
“What is there so surprising,” replied Mr. Courtney, “in the fact that
men should change Christ’s ordinances? They did the same thing before
our Saviour’s time; and he had more than once occasion to reprove them,
because they taught ‘for ordinances the commandments of men,’ and ‘made
the Word of God of none effect through their traditions.’”
“It is not,” replied the Professor, “so much the _fact_ which fills me
with astonishment, as the care which is evidently taken by ministers of
religion in our church to _conceal the fact_, and make on our minds the
impression that sprinkling, instead of being merely _allowed by the
Pope_, was actually commanded by Jesus Christ, and was commonly
practiced by the church till the Baptists undertook to introduce
immersion. But, if I do not forget, some of our writers have contended
that there was sufficient testimony in the writings of the early Fathers
to show that sprinkling was really employed at a very early day. Is it
not possible that Sir David Brewster, and Dr. Wall, and Professor
Stuart, and all those other great names, including Martin Luther and
John Calvin themselves, may have been mistaken, and that sprinkling was,
after all, the practice of the early church? Did not Cyprian, one of the
ancient Fathers, expressly declare that sprinkling was practiced in his
day, and was considered valid baptism? I am sure I have received such an
impression from some source.”
“You probably received it from some Doctor of Divinity—they are
accustomed to make such impressions, but Cyprian says no such thing. The
case to which you allude presents the very first instance on record in
the whole range of ecclesiastical history in which it was thought
possible to substitute any other act for the act of immersion. The facts
have been preserved by Eusebius, one of the Fathers, and the historian
of the early churches.
“It appears that a certain man, named Novatian, was taken sick, and was
apparently nigh unto death. In this condition he became, as many others
have done, greatly alarmed about his condition; and, professing faith in
Christ, desired to be baptized. But he was too weak to be taken out of
bed and put into the water. The water was, therefore, poured around him
in his bed. He afterward recovered, and devoting himself to the
ministry, applied for priestly orders, and the question arose, whether
one thus ‘poured upon’ in his bed could be accounted a Christian? Now,
it is evident, if pouring or sprinkling had been a common mode of
administering the ordinance, this question would never have been asked.
“Cyprian was written to upon this subject, and he replied, giving it as
his opinion that the grace usually conferred in baptism, might be
received by such pouring. In other words, that, though this was not
baptism, for it is not called baptism, _perichism_ (‘_perichutheis_’),
from _peri_, around, and _cheo_, to pour—yet he considered it a valid
_substitute_ for baptism. This was some time in the third century after
Christ. That such substitution was not common, and had received no
general sanction from the church, is evident from the well known fact
that the Monks of Cressy, in 754, wrote to the Pope, Stephen II.,
inquiring, ‘If it be lawful in case of necessity, occasioned by
sickness, to baptize an infant by pouring water on its head from a cup,
or the hands?’ To which the Pope replied: ‘Such a baptism, performed in
such a case of _necessity_, shall be accounted valid.’ ‘This,’ says
Basnage, ‘is accounted the first law against immersion.’ The Pontiff,
however, did not dispense with immersion except in case of extreme
necessity. This law, therefore, did not change the mode of dipping in
the public baptisms; and it was not till five hundred and fifty-seven
years, that the legislature, in a council at Ravenna, in 1311, declared
immersion and pouring indifferent.”
“Pardon me, Mr. Courtney, if I seem querulous; but did not ORIGEN,
another of the Fathers, speak of baptism as a pouring, when relating the
history of the flooding of the wood, and the sacrifice by the prophet
Elisha in his contest with the prophets of Baal? Does he not call this
_wetting_ a baptism?”
“He does indeed, Professor. He calls it a baptism in the same way that
the writer of the book of Daniel calls the _wetting_ of Nebuchadnezzar a
baptism. He was _baptized_ in the dews of heaven. The word in the Hebrew
is _tabal_, which no one ever doubted signified to dip or to immerse. He
was dipped in the dews of heaven—a most beautiful, though hyperbolical,
figure of speech, expressing the idea that he was as _wet as though he
had been dipped_. The allusion in both cases is to the wetting, not to
the act by which the wetting was occasioned.”
“I am glad,” said Uncle Jones, “that you mentioned that passage in
Daniel, for I confess it has been a stumbling-stone to me; yet you set
aside all my other Scriptural difficulties so easily, that I was almost
ashamed to mention it. I was going to tell you that baptize must signify
something besides immersion, because it was _impossible_ that the
deposed monarch could be actually immersed in dew.”
“If you had told me so, I would have proved to you,” said Mr. Courtney,
“that _dip_ does not mean _to dip_, or to submerge, because Milton, a
standard English writer, represents one as saying that he is dipped all
over in the perspiration of his own body:
_“‘A cold shuddering dew dips me all over.’_
“If Daniel had been translated as he should have been, ‘His body was
_dipped_ in the dews of heaven,’ everybody would have recognized the
force and beauty of the figure, as we do in Milton. It would have been
like that expression which represents the good land of Canaan as
‘_flowing_’ with milk and honey; or, like that which represents God as
_pouring out_ blessings till there should not be room to receive them.
Such hyperbolical figures are extremely beautiful, and are common in all
languages.
“Nebuchadnezzar is said to be dipped in dew, and Origen says the wood
and the sacrifice were immersed in water, to express the completeness of
the soaking or drenching which they received.”
“Yes,” said Theodosia, “Edwin made use of the word _ducking_ last
evening in the same way. You recollect, Mr. Courtney, the lad who pulled
the bucket of water over on his head in school yesterday, so much to the
amusement of all the boys. Well, Edwin, in relating the circumstances,
said that the little fellow got a good ‘_ducking_.’ By which he meant of
course, that he was as wet as though he had _dived_ in the water _like a
duck_. It would have been equally proper to have said that he got a good
‘dipping,’ and yet neither ducking or dipping means to pour upon—they
are diving and plunging still.”
“Well, well, Theodosia,” said the mother, “that is what I should call
stepping from the sublime to the ridiculous. Please go on, Mr. Courtney,
and don’t mind her nonsense.”
“Indeed, Mrs. Ernest, I feel obliged to your daughter for so appropriate
an illustration of the great principle of interpretation which must
guide us in deciding upon the meaning of such passages. She has shown us
that not only in Scriptural usage, and in the poets, but even in common
talk among the very children, _one mode_ of wetting is sometimes
figuratively employed to designate another mode; and that a person or
thing that is as thoroughly _wet_ as though it _had been_ dipped, may be
appropriately and beautifully said _to be dipped_.
“But now to return to the subject of our conversation. I have proved to
you, by the united testimony of Mosheim, Neander, and Moses Stuart—of
Luther, and Calvin, and Whitby, and Taylor, and Baxter—by Drs. Ypeig and
Durmont, Coleman and Bossuet, to whose testimony I might have added that
of many others of the highest authority, both among the ancients and the
moderns, that immersion was the practice of the early churches, and
continued to be the only practice, _except_ in cases of _supposed_
necessity, for MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED YEARS. I have showed you further,
how ‘pouring’ was first practiced irregularly, and without authority
from the Bible, or the Pope, in some rare cases of extreme sickness,
till the Monks of Cressy obtained the sanction of the Pope (not of
Christ) for its use in these _extreme cases of sickness_, more than
seven hundred years after Christ, and how immersion and pouring were at
length declared to be indifferent by the Pope and his Council (not by
the Scriptures) at Ravenna, in 1311.
“I have showed you also how John Calvin and the Westminster Assembly of
Divines were the means of bringing sprinkling into the English and
Presbyterian Churches of Scotland and England—whence it came over to
America with the Colonists.
“I have showed you also that as this change was made by the Pope and the
Papal Church, so it is confined to those countries which are, or have
been, under Roman Catholic rule, and that the Eastern Churches, which
never acknowledged the dominion of the Pope, have continued to practice
immersion even to the present day. I have showed you all this, not by
the testimony of _Baptist_ witnesses, but by that of members of
sprinkling churches—by Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians; and
these not men of doubtful character, and unknown to fame, but of
world-wide celebrity, both in regard to their religious and their
intellectual character. He who, after this, will not believe that
immersion was the baptism of the early churches, would not believe
though Paul himself should return from the dead to testify.”
“But, Mr. Courtney,” said Mrs. Ernest, “what if it was? Must we be
immersed, because the old Fathers were immersed? I thought you Baptists
were opposed to old traditions.”
“We are opposed, Mrs. Ernest,” said he, very solemnly. “We are opposed
to the substitution of the _traditions of men for the teachings of the
Word of God_. We have ascertained from the Word itself that it was
immersion which was commanded by Jesus Christ. It was thus the early
Christians understood it. It was this which, for many hundred years,
they practiced; but at length the man-made ordinance of sprinkling and
pouring was introduced by the authority of the Pope and his councils.
You have adopted _this_—your church almost universally practices it—you
have no other authority for it, as I have proved by your own writers,
but that of the Pope. Is it not true, therefore, that you are in your
church ‘teaching for doctrines the commandments of men?’
“I did not refer to the usage of the early churches as the _authority_
for immersion. If I could not find it in the Bible, I would not receive
it, though it had been practiced from the time of Noah. Tradition is no
authority in matters of religion. I may use it to confirm the teaching
of the actual commandment, but where there is no express precept or
example recorded in God’s Word, I owe no obedience in matters of
religion.”
“But why, then, did you go into this long investigation of the practice
of the church?”
“I did it, madam, for the satisfaction of Professor Jones and your
daughter, who seemed to have a sort of silent conviction that the simple
fact that sprinkling was _so generally practiced_, was in some way or
other sufficient evidence that it must have been commanded in the
Scriptures. I, therefore, traced immersion back to Jesus Christ, and
showed where he commanded it. I have now traced _pouring_ back to Pope
Stephen II. and showed where he allowed it in cases of necessity, and to
the Popish council at Ravenna, and showed where they allowed it in other
cases; and I have traced _sprinkling_, properly so-called, back to John
Calvin, and showed where he commanded it in his Book of Prayers and
Sacraments, published at Geneva. I have, therefore, founded immersion on
the _rock_ of God’s Word, and at the same time convinced you all; I
trust, that pouring and sprinkling rest only on the _sand_ of human
invention—not having even a credible _tradition_ to rest upon.”
Uncle Jones listened with some uneasiness to this long speech. He felt
its force, and recognized its truthfulness, but he was doubtful of the
effect it might have upon his sister. In fact, he was afraid of an
explosion.
Affection for her daughter had, however, been working wonders in the
mother’s mind within the last two days. She found that Theodosia _would_
examine, and she desired that she would do it _quickly_. She found she
was likely to be _convinced_, and she began to excuse her by considering
the weight and invincibility of the arguments. Now, she saw that she
_was_ convinced, and every additional reason for such conviction was a
comfort to her maternal pride, as it was new proof that her daughter was
not such a simpleton as to believe without the most convincing evidence.
She had not the most distant idea of being convinced _herself_. She did
not hear or weigh the testimony for herself—she heard and thought only
for Theodosia—and since her daughter _would_ become a Baptist, she was
gratified that it was nothing less than the most _unanswerable
arguments_ that compelled her to do so.
So far, therefore, from looking angry, she seemed rather pleased with
this conclusion of the schoolmaster’s arguments; and she herself
suggested that he should enter upon the other branch of it, by reminding
him that he had promised to show that the American Baptists did not
originate with Roger Williams any more than the European Baptists did
with the Mad Men of Munster.
“That is one of the easiest things in the world to do,” replied Mr.
Courtney. “Even granting that Roger Williams established the _first_
Baptist Church which was ever known in this country, yet it would not
follow that all the Baptists, or _any_ of the Baptist Churches received
their baptism from him; for there have been, every year since his day,
more or less regularly immersed Baptists, and regularly ordained Baptist
ministers coming to this country; and even though he had founded the
church at Providence, and that in an irregular manner, before any other
Baptist Church was founded—that would not invalidate the regularity of
any other of the thousands and thousands of Baptist Churches, unless it
could be made to appear that they were all colonies from that. I need
not, therefore, spend any time upon this point. Of all the thousands of
Baptist Churches in America, there are none whose pastors and members
have had any manner of dependence on the church founded by Roger
Williams. They have many of them received baptism from the _Dutch_
Baptists, of whom Drs. Ypeig and Durmont testify that they belong to a
body of Christians who can trace their origin down to the very times of
the Apostles. Many of them received it from the _Welsh_ Baptists, who
can trace their descent back to the sixth or seventh century. Many of
them received it from the English Baptists, who have been the victims of
proscription and persecution from a very early day. But _none_ of them
received baptism from Roger Williams, or the church said to have been
established by him at Providence. The truth is, the society established
by Roger Williams, Holliman, and others, soon died out. It never planted
any other church. It cannot be proved that any Baptist who received
baptism in that body and by their authority, was ever concerned in
baptizing any founder of other churches.”
“I have often heard of Roger Williams,” said Theodosia, “as the founder
of the Baptists in this country. Please tell me what was his relation to
them.”
“Roger Williams adopted at one time Baptist sentiments, at least, in
some particulars,” replied Mr. Courtney. “He desired to be immersed.
There was no Baptist minister at hand. He consequently immersed one of
his followers, who, in turn, immersed him, and then he considered
himself competent to immerse others. The little company, thus
irregularly baptized, called itself a Baptist church; but, in about four
months, Roger Williams himself changed his opinions and withdrew from
the society. The so-called church soon died out, and the present Baptist
Church of Providence was founded on an independent basis, separate and
distinct from that. It seems probable, however, from recent historical
researches, that the _oldest_ Baptist Church in the United States, is
that at Newport, in Rhode Island, founded by John Clark, against the
regularity of whose baptism there has, so far as I know, been nothing
alleged. Though, as to that, even if _this, and all the other churches
of Rhode Island_, had been, and were still, irregular up to the present
time, it would not affect the standing of the great body of the churches
in the United States, since very few of them derived their baptism
directly or indirectly from Rhode Island—and not single one of them from
Roger Williams.”
THE SEVENTH NIGHT’S STUDY.
In which it is clearly proved by the Scriptures themselves and by the
testimony of the most learned and eminent pedobaptist ministers, that
infant baptism was not commanded by Christ or the apostles: infant
baptism was not practiced or sanctioned by Christ or his apostles.
Seventh Night’s Study.
The attentive reader may have observed that Mr. Percy has not favored us
with his presence for the last three nights. Though he seemed so greatly
interested in the subject, yet with the third night’s study he
apparently abandoned it. Since that time he had not visited Mrs.
Ernest’s cottage, or held any communion with its inmates. He did not
know what progress Theodosia had made in her investigations, nor what
assistance she had received from Uncle Jones or others. The remark made
by Mr. Courtney, as they were about to separate on that occasion, “that
he would find it much easier to satisfy his mind that sprinkling and
pouring were not baptism, than he would to abandon his church
connections and be baptized according to the commandment of Jesus
Christ,” had opened his eyes. He had, till that moment, looked upon the
subject merely as one of curious speculation. It was till then a mere
question of fact, to be decided by testimony. As such, its investigation
greatly interested him. It was congenial to his logical and
discriminating cast of mind, and he had been studying it as he would a
case of law. But he now saw that it was a _practical_ matter. If he
decided that he had not been baptized, consistency would require that he
should at once apply for baptism. This would break off his connection
with a large, and wealthy, and influential body, and tie him down to a
little company of obscure and ignorant laborers and mechanics—for of
such was the newly-organized Baptist Church of which we have been
speaking chiefly composed. This was something he could not think of. His
natural pride had never been humbled by the grace of God, and he was not
at all prepared to resign a position at once honorable and profitable,
for one of comparative insignificance and contempt. He thought of these
things as he was going home that night, and at once resolved that he
would have no more to do with the subject.
In this resolution he had been confirmed, by a visit next morning from
Colonel White, one of the members of the Session, who was a wealthy
speculator in lands, and one of his best patrons. After some
conversation about matters of business, Colonel White carelessly
remarked: “They have it rumored, Squire Percy, that you are on the eve
of leaving our church and becoming a Baptist.”
“Let me assure you, colonel, that there is not the slightest foundation
for such a report. I have, indeed, spent a few hours in the
investigation of the mode of baptism, but it was for the mere purpose of
fortifying my mind with the best arguments in favor of our position on
that subject. I found, indeed, that the immersionists have much firmer
ground to stand upon than I imagined; but I have never for a moment
entertained the idea of leaving the Presbyterian Church.”
“I am glad to hear it, Mr. Percy, for I prefer, and so do several of our
best firms, to employ you to attend to our business, and we had all
about concluded that we could never trust our interests in the hands of
one so fickle minded as such a change would prove a man to be; and,
besides this, since the death of Deacon Smith, there has been a vacancy
in the Church Session, which we have been desirous to fill with some
talented and efficient _young_ man, since the rest of us are now
beginning to be somewhat advanced in years. We were talking of you, and
the only objection seemed to be, that you were yet unmarried. I took the
liberty to say that I thought _that_ difficulty would be removed in the
course of another month, as I understood the wedding-day was fixed. It
is no secret, you know. But then, rumor says also, that Miss Theodosia
is going over to the Baptists; and that her mother, with all her
authority, has not been able to dissuade her from the investigation of
the subject, though she sees very plainly where it will lead her.”
“It is very true,” said the young man, “that she has been engaged in the
study of this subject, but I do not know to what conclusion she may
come. For my own part, I have concluded to have nothing more to do with
it.”
“It is a delicate matter, Mr. Percy, and perhaps I ought not to mention
it, and nothing but my regard for your future happiness, and the honor
of our church, could induce me to do it; but would it not be wise in you
to use your influence (which I know must be very great) to induce her to
pause before she takes a step which will cause your house, always after
your marriage, to be divided against itself? I know I have no right to
advise, but I take the liberty of a friend to you, and a friend to your
father before you, to merely suggest such a thought. Perhaps, on
reflection, you may think it advisable, either to see her immediately,
or write a little line, stating your own determination, and whatever
else you may think most likely to operate upon her mind, so as to
prevent such a terrible event as it would be to you and all of us,
should she so far disgrace her name and dishonor her profession as to
leave the communion in which she was born, and by which she has been
nourished and taught—in which her grandparents lived and died—and of
which she is herself the ornament and pride, and throw herself away,
with all her loveliness and intelligence, by uniting her fate to that
ignorant and obscure sect, with a mechanic for a preacher, who have
started up here like a mushroom in a single night, and will probably
pass away again in a day.”
Mr. Percy was about to reply, when the colonel anticipated him by rising
and grasping the young man’s hand very warmly in both of his. “Pardon
me,” he said, “I ought not to have spoken thus. Forget that I have said
it. But don’t forget my case in the Supreme Court. I have entrusted it
entirely to you. I want you to have all the honor which will accrue from
a decision in your favor. Good morning. You will need all your time to
make preparation for next week’s Circuit Court—you start on Saturday, I
believe?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Well, good luck to you,” and the colonel was gone.
Mr. Percy walked his office with a restless, undecided air, for some
time, and then set himself resolutely to work in the preparation of some
cases for the approaching court. But he could not banish the subject
from his mind. He sometimes thought he would go at once, and have
another conversation with his betrothed upon the subject; but when he
remembered her earnest and conscientious truthfulness of soul, he feared
to lower himself in her estimation by presenting to her any but the real
reasons for his abandonment of the investigation, and these he hardly
dared to own even to himself. This was on Wednesday morning. He learned
on Thursday that Uncle Jones had been conversing with Theodosia on the
subject; and, on Friday, that both he and Mr. Courtney had been at the
cottage; and Mrs. Tattle had told young Dr. Woodruff, who was his
intimate friend and confidant, that, on the coming Sabbath, Miss Ernest
was to be baptized.
Early on Saturday morning, he was obliged to start to a distant
county-site to attend a session of the Circuit Court. Before his return
(if this story were true) the die would be cast. If he would prevent it
at all, he must do it now. He determined to write what he felt he could
not speak. The letter read thus:
“DEAREST:—I must leave town to-morrow, and shall be gone a week.
I have been so pressed by business, that I have not been able to
call in again, as I intended when I saw you last. I cannot come
to-night, but I cannot leave without expressing to you once more
my earnest love. You know, dearest Theodosia, that the happiness
of my life is bound up in yours. I have no wish or hope in the
future but those of which you form a part; and, if what I am
about to say should be unpleasant to you, I beg you will
remember that it is dictated by the tenderest and most ardent
affection. It is because I value your happiness even more than
my own, that I venture to say what I am about to utter. I have
learned from rumor that you have already determined to abandon
our church, and unite with that contemptible sect of Baptists. I
do not know if this be true or not. I hope and pray the rumor
may prove false. I will not say these Baptists are not right
about the mode of baptism. It may be they are. But whether one
mode or another be correct, baptism is not essential to
salvation. It is a mere outward form, and I cannot, for the sake
of a mere external and non-essential ceremony, abjure the church
of my fathers. I fondly hope that she, whom I love more than all
else in life, will agree with me in this. I cannot bear the
thought that one so beautiful, so lovely, so accomplished, so
fitted to shine and _lead_ in the highest circle of our
society—one, too, who has the unbounded confidence and affection
of her brothers and sisters in the church—should bring such
dishonor upon her father’s name, such sorrow to her mother’s
heart, and such regret to his, who rejoices in the hope that he
will be the companion of her life, and the husband of her love,
as to prove recreant to her Christian faith—forsake the church
of the mother who offered her to God in infancy—of the teachers
who instructed her childhood—of the pastor who prayed with her
in the time of her conviction, and rejoiced over her at the time
of her conversion; and may I not add of him who, trusting in the
solemn promise of our betrothal, expects to spend his life in
promoting her happiness? How can you, my dearest love—how can
you disregard such considerations as these? I know that you are
conscientious in every step you take, and I beg you to reflect
whether these things should not have some influence with you. I
know that you mean to do right, and I entreat that you will
consider if such a course will not be wrong. I know I have no
right to dictate, but, oh! I do beseech you, if you have any
love for me, that you will not so mortify and distress, not me
alone, but all who love you, as to unite your fate with those
boorish, uneducated, and bigoted people, called Baptists.
“Your distressed, but still most affectionate,
“G. W. PERCY.”
This note he hardly trusted himself to read, so he sealed it up, and
despatched a messenger to carry it to Mrs. Ernest’s. Its immediate
effect on Theodosia we have already seen. When she had reached her own
room, she threw her head upon her mother’s bosom, and, sighing as if a
heart-string broke with every deep-fetched sob that came, gave free
expression to her uncontrollable distress.
It was long before the mother became sufficiently composed to read the
letter, and learn what it was that had occasioned such a terrible
heart-sorrow to her loving and sensitive child. Terrible she knew it
must be, for never in her life had she seen Theodosia exhibit such
unutterable distress. The young lady herself did not know precisely what
the letter contained. She had loved Mr. Percy with all the fervor of a
first and only love. The day was fixed only a few weeks in the future
for their wedding. The preparations for it were even then begun. To be
what Mr. Percy would approve, was to her the highest point of earthly
ambition. She prized her peerless beauty, not for its own sake, but
because Mr. Percy praised it. She valued her accomplishments, chiefly
because Mr. Percy thought them desirable. With all her independence of
thought and originality of mind, she had learned to think that she was
wrong, if Mr. Percy did not think her right.
In this investigation he had gone with her step by step, so long as he
had taken any part in it. She had, till now, not the very slightest
suspicion that he would not _act out his convictions_, as well as
herself—much less did she imagine that he would so fearfully disapprove
of her obedience to what she now was fully satisfied was the plain and
unmistakable command of her Redeemer.
The first influence of this communication was like that of a heavy blow
upon the head. It staggered, and then stunned the mind. She only felt
that some great and terrible calamity had fallen on her heart and
crushed it. She could not recall the language of the letter, but only a
general impression of its contents. But there was, here and there, a
word which was burnt into her very brain. With all its protestations of
affection, she felt (for love is jealous in such things) that if she
became a Baptist, she forfeited his love.
To her mother she could speak words no other’s ear might hear—and when
her sobs had somewhat ceased, and she had been persuaded to lie down,
and try to be composed, she drew her mother’s face to hers, and while.
their tears mingled together upon her cheek, she whispered, “I did not
think he could have cast me off for seeking to know and do my duty.”
“My precious child, he has not cast you off—he says again and again,
that he loves you dearly, and hopes to spend his life in rendering you
happy.”
“But, mother, does he not say he cannot bear _to think of my becoming a
Baptist_? Does he not call them, whom now I do believe are the true
church of Jesus Christ—does he not call them _that contemptible sect_?
Does he not say that because he _has no right to dictate_, he _entreats_
me not to _mortify_ him, not to _distress_ him, by becoming one of that
little company of boorish, uneducated, and bigoted people? No, no,
mother, I see it all. If I become a Baptist, I must resign his love—I
must give up all the most cherished hopes of my life. After such an
expression of his dislike to these poor and humble disciples of Jesus, I
would not dare, if I were one of them, to become his wife. I must choose
between him and my Saviour—I see it all—but I can’t choose now. Oh! my
mother, pray for me—pray for me! _You_ will not cast me off, my mother:
_you_ will love me still. Will you not, my mother? You can love, even
though I do mortify and distress you, can’t you mother?”
“Yes, yes, darling—don’t look at me so wildly. I will love you always—I
will love you dearly. And so will Mr. Percy, even though you do mortify
and distress him. He can’t help loving you, my sweet child. No one, who
knows you, can do any thing but love you.”
“No, mother, _he can’t love as I must be loved_, were I the wife of his
bosom. But I dare not think of that now. I must pray—I must ask wisdom—I
must get strength from heaven. Leave me now, mother, but don’t forget to
pray for me.”
The mother went away—and, kneeling down, poured out her heart in a
sincere and fervent prayer, that God would indeed give comfort to her
poor child’s loving and smitten spirit. While she, the dear, sweet
child, lay still upon her bed, and only prayed with those groanings that
cannot be uttered, for _strength to bear_, as well as _energy to do_—her
mind grew calmer and clearer, and when her mother came, an half hour
after, to bid her good-night, she was in a deep sleep, with something
almost like a smile upon her face. This may seem strange to one who does
not know that one effect of sudden, deep, and terrible sorrow is quickly
to exhaust the nervous energies and predispose to heavy slumber. There
is, therefore, a most affecting beauty in the language of the
Evangelist, when he says of the disciples, whom Jesus had left only a
little time, while he went to pray, that he returned to them, and found
them _sleeping for sorrow_. No other language could so perfectly express
the deep, intense, and soul-exhausting _agony of mind_ which they had
felt on learning that their beloved Lord was soon to perish by the hands
of his enemies, and that one of their number should be the wretch who
would betray him into their hands.
So Theodosia might now be said to be sleeping for sorrow. She did not
wake till after her ordinary time of rising in the morning. When she
first became conscious, there was a feeling of weight upon her eyelids
which prevented her from opening them; and as she lay there, motionless,
the events of the past evening began to come back, like the
dimly-remembered imagery of some fearful dream. At first, she was only
conscious that something terrible had befallen her, and it required some
little effort to remember what it was. Then came to view the letter,
just as it looked when her mother handed it to her as she sat in the
parlor. She could see every mark of every letter of the superscription.
Then the open letter was before her; and she read some of the lines as
they had marked themselves with terrible distinctness on her brain;
others she could not _em_, but only a dim impression of their sense came
up in her remembrance. When, as she ran thus in her mind over the
letter, she came to where it read, “I know I have no right to
dictate—but oh! I do beseech you, if you have any love for me, that you
will not so mortify and distress, not me alone,” etc., the tears flowed
freely, and she was able to open her eyes.
Her mother had, at that moment, come in, and was bending over her.
“My poor child,” said she, as she saw the tears start even before she
seemed to be awake—“how do you feel this morning?”
“Is it morning, mother? I have been asleep—I have had a terrible
dream—or was it all reality? Do, mother, tell me, did you bring me a
letter last night from Mr. Percy?”
“Yes, my child, you are not quite awake. It was no dream; but the
reality is not so terrible as you imagine. Let me give you this cup of
coffee, and you will feel refreshed.”
“Theodosia sat up in bed and sipped the coffee—and shortly afterward got
up, and went and sat beside her mother and engaged in some worsted work
which she had begun the day before. When her mother went out, she
followed her, and stood beside her till she returned; so she continued
all through the day, accompanying her as constantly and almost as
noiselessly as her shadow. She did not speak—she did not weep—she
sometimes _tried_ to smile, but it was pitiful to see the effort made to
divert her mother’s mind and make her think she was not _so very bad_.
In this condition we must leave her for the present, and go to the
dwelling of Professor Jones, where Mr. Courtney and the Rev. Mr. Johnson
are waiting to engage in the discussion of the subject of infant
baptism—which discussion, if it should prove to be less entertaining
than this little narrative of what transpired at Mrs. Ernest’s, will, we
trust, be more instructive.
“If I understood you correctly, Mr. Courtney,” said Professor Jones
(when they were all assembled), “you asserted that there was in the
Scriptures not the slightest authority for the baptism of infants, and
that baptism received in infancy is not valid baptism.”
“You are _nearly_ correct,” said Mr. Courtney, smiling. “I did not
_assert_ that there was no such authority, for it is not my habit to
deal in _mere assertions_. I said that I would _prove_ that this was
so.”
“But how will you set about proving such a negative?”
“By offering the only testimony which the nature of the case admits. Our
authority to baptize any one, infant or adult, is derived only from the
_commandments_ or _example_ of Christ or his apostles. All they said and
all they did which is of any authority to us, is recorded in the Word of
God. Now if I can’t find, and you can’t show me, _any single place_
where an infant was commanded to be baptized, or _any single place_
where one is said to have been baptized, then I think I may venture to
say that _there is no authority there for infant baptism_.”
“I think so too; but I am certain we can show you a number of such
places. Can we not, Mr. Johnson?”
“Certainly we can. It has always been my understanding that the baptism
of the infant children of believers is explicitly commanded by both
Christ and the apostles; and what was required by their precepts, they
enforced by their example. They both commanded and they practiced it.”
“Very good. Here then is the point on which we are at issue. _If the
places are in the Book, you can show them._ I will not be unreasonable.
I do not ask even for two witnesses—I only require _one_. Show me _one
solitary instance_ of either precept or example, and I will give up the
case.”
“I have been accustomed to think,” said the Professor, “that the
commission itself, as recorded in Matt. xxviii. 19, and in Mark xvi. 15,
16, contained all the authority which was given to the Christian Church
to administer the ordinance of baptism; and I had supposed that the
authority to baptize infants was to be found in what Christ said on that
occasion—‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.’”
“That,” said Mr. Johnson, “is what Mark says. Get a Testament and see
how it reads in Matthew. I think it is somewhat different. Here it
is—‘Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo! I am with
you always, even unto the end of the world.’”
“Very good,” said Mr. Courtney. “You have the law all now before you. Is
there in it a single allusion, even the faintest, to infants? Did Christ
say, as you Presbyterians do, Go baptize believers and their infant
children—or believers only? Matthew says, _teach_ them and _then_
baptize them. So they must be such as can be taught. But can a little
babe, ‘mewling and puking in its mother’s arms,’ be taught the doctrines
of salvation by Jesus Christ? Mark says—‘He that _believeth_ and is
baptized;’ so that he speaks of none baptized but those who had first
_believed_. Can little infants, who do not yet so much as know their
right hand from their left, exercise faith in the Saviour of souls?
_You_ will not, I am sure, venture to say they can, though there have
been some _Doctors of Divinity_ who were silly enough to make such
assertions. And Matthew, in fact, says just the same that Mark does; for
‘the word rendered _teach_ here, is not the one that is usually so
translated in the New Testament. This word properly means _disciple_, or
_make disciples_ of all nations.’—(_Barnes’ Notes, In. loc_.) So also
says that eminent and good man, Dr. Doddridge, author of the ‘Rise and
Progress of Religion’: ‘Here it is to be observed, _first_, certain
things are enjoined, viz.: to _disciple_—to baptize—to teach. Secondly,
these things are enjoined, in a _certain order_, viz.: the order in
which they stand in the divine commission.’—(_Dod. Lec._) So says also
that other great and good man, the pious Baxter, author of ‘The Saints’
Rest’:
“‘Go _disciple_ me all nations—and as for those,’ he continues, ‘who say
they are discipled _by_ baptizing and not _before_ baptizing, they speak
not the sense of the text, nor that which is true or rational, if they
mean it absolutely as so spoken, else why should one be baptized more
than another?’ ‘This text is not like some occasional historical mention
of baptism, but it is _the very commission_ of Christ to his apostles
for preaching and baptizing, and purposely expresseth their several
works in their several orders. Their _first_ task is by teaching to make
disciples, who are by Mark called _believers_. The _second_ work is to
_baptize_ them—whereunto is annexed the promise of salvation. The
_third_ is to teach them all other things which are afterward to be
learned in the school of Christ. To contemn _this order_ is to renounce
_all rules of order_, for where can we expect to find it, if not here?’
‘I profess,’ he goes on to say, ‘my conscience is fully satisfied from
this text that it is one sort of faith, even _saving_ faith, that must
go before baptism; and the profession whereof the minister must
expect.’—_Dis. on the Right to Sacrament_, pp. 91–150.
“Dr. Hibbard, a Methodist, in his Commentary on Matt. xxviii. 19–20,
says—‘It is well known that our English version does not give a
satisfactory view of this passage. The word rendered teach in the 19th
verse is altogether a different word in the original from that rendered
teach in the 20th. It should read, Go _disciple_, that is make
_converts_ to Christianity of all nations,’ etc.
“Neither of you, gentlemen, nor any other Greek scholar, will dispute
that _matheteusate_, in the first part of this commission, means make
disciples, as certainly as _didaskontes_ means teaching in the last part
of it. Nor can you, or any man of common sense, pretend that any are
commanded to be baptized, but those who have first been made disciples.
Now what is the New Testament meaning of a disciple? Jesus Christ
himself shall answer: Luke xiv. 26, 27, 33. ‘If any man come to me and
hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren,
and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he _cannot be my disciple_. And
whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me _cannot be my
disciple_. So likewise, whosoever he be of you, that forsaketh not all
that he hath, he _cannot be my disciple_.’ Do little infants, who do not
even know the name of Christ, and scarcely know their own, so love
Christ that the love they have to all others is like hatred compared to
that they feel for him? Can little infants forsake all for Christ, and
do they daily take their cross and follow him? Then they are his
disciples, and are commanded to be baptized. But no sensible man who is
not a _Doctor of Divinity_ would ever think of such absurdity. _You do
not pretend to baptize infants on any such grounds._ You do not ask in
them for any evidence of penitence, or piety, or faith, or love, or any
thing else that goes to make a disciples of Christ.”
“No,” replied Mr. Johnson, “we baptize them on the _faith of their
parents_.”
“But this commission says nothing about baptizing the _children of
believing parents_. By it the ministers of Christ are commanded to
baptize _disciples_ (according to Matthew) and _believers_ (according to
Mark); but in regard to the _children_ of these disciples and believers,
they are both as silent as the grave.”
“It was not necessary,” said Mr. Johnson, “to put the authority for the
baptism of infants _in the commission_, since the matter is fully
provided for elsewhere. I grant that it is not in _this_ passage, but it
does not follow that it is not in the Bible.”
“Oh! no—certainly not,” said Mr. Courtney. “I am easy to be satisfied;
show it to me _in any other place_, and it will do quite as well.”
“But, I do not feel disposed,” said Professor Jones “to give up this
passage so easily. Does not the term ‘_all nations_’ include infants as
well as adults?”
“Certainly, but they were not to _baptize all nations_, for this would
include _all unbelievers_ and _their_ children, as well as _believers_
and _their_ children. They were to Go to all nations (not to the Jews
alone, as they had been used to think); and among all nations they were
to make disciples, as many as they could—and those disciples who
believed they were to baptize.”
“But, Mr. Courtney, let me put in another plea for the infants. I am
very anxious to get them into this commission, for I have always thought
they were surely there. It is evident they are not included in the
expression ‘all nations,’ since it is true, as you say, it will include
all infidels, idolators, profligates, and murderers, as well as the
infant children of unbelievers—but are they not included in the word
disciples? May they not, in view of their innocence, and purity, and
evident fitness for heaven, be properly called the disciples of Jesus?
Did not Jesus himself compare his disciples to them, and say that none
could enter heaven who did not become like one of them? I will
therefore, put it on this ground: None but disciples are to be baptized,
but infants are already by nature disciples—and therefore infants are to
be baptized.”
“But,” said Mr. Courtney, “the disciples who were to be baptized were
_not_ disciples by _nature_. They were to be _made_ disciples. They were
to be _believing_ disciples, and capable of learning, for they were to
be taught. Now as infants are not _made disciples_ by hearing the
Word—as they are incapable _of faith_ or of instruction in the things
that Christ commanded, they cannot be included in the term disciples.”
“Yes, but infants have the natural _capacity to believe and to be
taught_, which will in time be fully developed.”
“Very true; and so when these capacities are fully developed, and they
_actually have believed_, they will have become disciples. You know very
well that children do not ordinarily grow up the disciples of Jesus, but
the servants of sin, and all of them need conversion after they come to
the development of their faculties, before they can be disciples. They
are in infancy in _some respects like to disciples_, but they are _not_
disciples, but ‘are by _nature_ the children of wrath even as
others’—and as soon as they are old enough, they show it very plainly.”
[Illustration: Presbyterian minister baptizes an infant by sprinkling.]
[Illustration: Infant crying in his mother’s arms after baptism.]
“Well, I fear we must give up the commission. But tell me this, if
infants are not fit subjects for baptism, how can they be fit for
heaven?”
“Those only are fit subjects for baptism, whom _Christ commanded to be
baptized_. The Gospel has nothing to do with infants. There is in it no
command addressed to them, nor is any act, either of mind or body,
required of them in order to their salvation. They are no more required
to believe than they are to be baptized. They are saved without either.
You are required to do both. To _you_, God says _believe_ and be
baptized. You profess to have _believed_, but you have never made the
slightest effort to be baptized. What was done to you in infancy,
without your knowledge or assent, was no _act of yours_. You are still
living in open disobedience to this law. Jesus Christ did not command
_your parents_ to _have you_ baptized—putting the responsibility on
them, but he commanded _you_ to be baptized for yourself; and that not
_before_ you believed, but _afterward_: ‘He that believeth, and [then]
is baptized, shall be saved.’”
“It seems to me, Mr. Courtney,” said the pastor, “that you are rather
early in your application of the subject. We have granted, indeed, that
the authority for infant baptism is not in the commission by which we
are directed to baptize adult believers, but it may be found elsewhere.
A recent writer on this subject, the Rev. Dr. Summers, has very
expressively said: ‘That the New Testament ABOUNDS with the proofs of
infant baptism.’”
“Then, sir, it will be very easy to find at least _one text_ which
teaches it.”
“Certainly it will, not only one, but many.”
“But I only ask for _one_; and if you have several, give me that first
which you most rely upon.”
“Well, sir, you have the Testament in your hand, please turn to Matthew
xix. 13, 14: ‘Then were brought unto him little children, that he should
put his hands upon them, and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. But
Jesus said, suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not,
for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.’ Do you not see some authority for
infant baptism in that?”
“Indeed, sir, I cannot—can you?”
“Yes, truly. It is to my mind perfectly satisfactory. And I do not see
how it can fail to convince any candid man who reads it.”
“Your mind, Mr. Johnson, must be easily satisfied then, for I can’t see
_one word_ about baptism in it.”
“Oh! I do not say that baptism is _expressly named_ in it; but, sir, the
_inference_ is irresistible, that these children were brought _to be
baptized_, and that the people were accustomed to bring their children
for that purpose, and that Jesus commanded his disciples _never to
forbid it_, as you, Baptists, have done, but to suffer the little
children to come to him, and make a part of his visible church.”
“Is it possible! Pardon me, Mr. Johnson, if I say, that to my mind there
can be no inference about the object or purpose for which these children
were brought, because _it is expressly and very definitely stated in the
text_. They brought them, that he should _lay his hands on them, and
pray_. This was all they came for, and this was all he did. He did not
baptize them. He did not command them to be baptized. He merely (verse
15th) ‘laid his hands on them, and departed.’ But there is an
irresistible inference that I draw from this text, and that is, that
_the disciples had never been accustomed to infant baptism_. If they had
been in the habit of _baptizing_ children, they could never have
objected to their coming to _be blessed_ by Jesus. They would have
regarded it as a thing of course. But if they had, like the Baptist
Churches, received _only adults_, and them only on repentance and
profession of faith, it was not at all strange that they should reprove
those who brought the little children, who could not believe And there
was a beautiful propriety in the lesson which Jesus taught them, viz.:
that though children were _not to be baptized_, and were not members of
his church, yet they were to be objects of _intense interest_ and deep
solicitude to his people. Though they were not to be baptized, _they
were to be prayed for_. Parents, therefore, ought to bring their little
children to Christ by _faith and prayer_, for that he has commanded, but
_not_ by baptism, for that he has forbidden, by requiring those who are
baptized first to believe.”
“But you cannot deny, Mr. Courtney, that by the kingdom of heaven, in
this passage, is meant the _visible church_, and that Jesus expressly
mentions children as members of it?”
“Indeed, Mr. Johnson, he mentions no such thing. It does not matter at
all whether the kingdom of heaven means the church visible or invisible.
He does _not_ say that children are members of it, but that _its members
are like children_. He does _not_ say his church is composed of
children, but of _such_ as are _like_ children. For in the corresponding
passage in Luke and Mark, he goes right on, and explains by saying,
‘Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall
in no case enter therein.’ Mr. Barnes, in his Notes on this text, says:
‘Of such as these—that is, of persons with such tempers as these—is the
church to be composed. He does not say _of those infants_, but of such
as resembled them, or were like them in temper, was the kingdom of
heaven made up. It was proper, therefore, that he should pray for
them.’—_Notes, in loc._ Olshausen, of whose Commentary, Kitto, a brother
Pedobaptist of his and yours, declares that it is, on the New Testament,
the best now in existence—Olshausen says on this text: ‘For entering
into the kingdom of God, there is enjoined that child-like feeling which
enables us most easily to discern the gifts which have been bestowed
upon each, and, consequently, puts us in circumstances to fulfill our
calling.’ He goes on to say: ‘Of that reference to infant baptism, which
it is so common to seek for in this passage, there is clearly _not the
slightest trace to be found_.’ And Bishop Taylor, another eminent
Pedobaptist, says, in substance, that ‘to rely upon this text as proof
of infant baptism, proves nothing so much as the want of a better
argument.’”
“I think, Mr. Johnson,” said Professor Jones, “that we had better, for
the present at least, let this passage stand aside. It certainly gives
no _direct_ testimony in our favor, and even the inferential is somewhat
doubtful. We can afford to let it go, as you know we have many others,
about the meaning of which there can be no question. Let us take this,
for instance, Acts xi. 38, 39: ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of
you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. And ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the promise is unto you
_and to your children_, and to all that are afar off, even as many as
the Lord our God shall call.’ Here, most undoubtedly, the parents and
children are both included, and that so expressly and plainly, as to
leave no room for even the shadow of a doubt.”
“That is, indeed,” replied Mr. Johnson, “one of the strongest passages,
if it be not the very strongest that we have.”
“And yet,” said Mr. Courtney, “it has not, in fact, the very _slightest
value_ in favor of your faith or practice, but, on the contrary,
furnishes at least a very strong _inference_ against them; for if infant
baptism was either recognized or practiced, it is incredible that Peter
should not have said, ‘Be baptized,’ not only ‘every one of you,’ but
you and your children. All that is said of baptism, is only to those who
are commanded to repent. Those who are commanded to be baptized, are
_first_ commanded to _repent_; and none are to be baptized but those who
_have repented_—not the penitents _and their children_.”
“True, Mr. Courtney; but you forget the last part of the text: ‘the
promise is to you and your children.’”
“The promise of what? Mr. Johnson. What promise is Peter speaking of?
Evidently that in the Prophet Joel: ‘It shall come to pass in the last
days I will pour out my Spirit,’ etc. On the faith of this promise,
Peter says: ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, and you shall
receive the Holy Ghost. For this promise (that is, of the Holy Ghost,)
is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off’ etc. It
was no promise of baptism, but the promise of something that should
_follow_ their repentance and baptism. But even if the promise _did_
refer to baptism, the subjects of it were not _infants_, for its
application is expressly limited to those who can be _called_ into the
repentance and faith of the Gospel: ‘Even as many as the Lord our God
_shall call_,’ (and no more). Does God call little unconscious infants?
If not, then they are not the persons spoken of.”
“What, then, do you think is the meaning of the word children?”
“Simply their descendants. In the next chapter, Peter says to these same
people, who were all grown men and women: ‘_Ye_ are the _children_ of
the prophets.’ And nothing is more common in the Scriptures than to
speak of the Jewish nation as children of Israel. They were not a nation
of babies, nevertheless.
“But even granting, for the sake of argument, that it was _little_
children—infants—that were spoken of, then if they were to be _baptized_
without repentance and faith in Christ, so also are all the aliens and
idolators among the Gentiles, for they are included in the term ‘all
that are afar off.’ And there is the same authority to baptize these as
the children. They are equally included in the ‘promise:’ ‘You and your
children, _and all that are afar off_’ Unless you will admit the promise
thus to embrace ‘all the world, and the rest of mankind,’ you must limit
it, as Peter did, by confining it to those ‘of you,’ and of ‘your
children,’ and of the Gentiles _whom the Lord our God shall call_. If,
therefore, this is the strongest, or one of the strongest passages you
have, your case is a desperate one indeed. The text contains a command
and a promise. It commands men _first_ to _repent_, and then to be
baptized—just as Jesus commands them _first_ to _believe_, and then to
be baptized. And, of course, unless unconscious infants can repent and
believe, they cannot be baptized. Then it promises the ‘gift of the Holy
Ghost’ to those who _have_ thus _repented_ and _been baptized_: for
Peter makes this the condition of their receiving it: ‘Repent and be
baptized, and ye shall receive the gift.’ And as _they_ might receive
the _gift_ of the Spirit on these terms, viz.: baptism and repentance,
so might their _descendants_, and so might even the idolatrous
_Gentiles_, who were now afar off—even as many of them as the Lord our
God should call.”
“That is indeed entirely satisfactory,” said Professor Jones, “and I am
only surprised that I did not see it in that light before. But the truth
is, because I saw _baptized_ in one part of the passage, and children in
another part, I took it for granted (since it was one of the proof-texts
quoted in our confession of faith) that it was the _children_ who were
to be baptized. I see now that it was only those who repented; and I am
ready candidly to acknowledge that there is no authority for infant
baptism in _this_ text, but there are surely many others.”
“Oh, yes,” said Mr. Courtney, “you know ‘the New Testament _abounds_
with proof of infant baptism.’ And if you will turn to 1st Cor. vii. 14,
you will find one which has been relied upon even more confidently than
the one we have just disposed of: ‘For the unbelieving husband is
sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the
husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.’”
“Well, I should like to see how you will set aside a passage so plain
and appropriate as that is,” said Mr. Johnson.
“I simply say,” rejoined Mr. Courtney, “that there is not _one word_ in
it about baptism, either of infants or adults. It has not only no
mention of baptism, but not even the most distant _allusion_ to it,
direct or indirect.”
“Why, sir, does it not say that the children of but one believing parent
are _holy_? and if they are _holy_, are they not fit subjects for
baptism?”
“You know,” replied Mr. Courtney, “that the words _holy_ and
_sanctified_, among the Jews, were used in a physical or ceremonial
sense, as well as in a moral sense. If the Apostle used them here in a
_moral_ sense, he stated what _was not true_, for in this sense the
infidel husband or the infidel wife _was not made holy_ by the other’s
faith. The faith of the husband did not make a _saint_ of his wife, nor
did the faith of the wife make a _saint_ of her idolatrous husband. They
might have been, and doubtless often were more sinful afterward than
before the other party was converted. Nor does the faith of _both
parents combined render their children holy_, in this sense of the word:
for you know and every other man knows, that the children of believers
_grow up in sin, and need to be converted_, just as much as the children
of unbelievers; and without such conversion, will just as surely be lost
as the children of the vilest. Did David’s faith take the incestuous
Ammon and murderous Absalom to heaven? You and your wives are both
believers: are _your_ children, in this sense, holier than other
children? Do you not daily pray for God’s converting grace to _make_
them holy? It is evident, therefore, that the words sanctified and holy
(which are equivalent terms) must here be understood in their other
sense. The expression is indeed one of those _Hebraisms_ in which Paul
abounds. Its real meaning is very clearly stated by one of your best
Presbyterian Commentators, Dr. McKnight—for more than twenty years the
Moderator of the Presbyterian General Assembly of Scotland:
“‘I think, therefore,’ says he, ‘with Elsner, that the words in this
verse have neither a federal nor a moral meaning, but are used in the
idiom of the Hebrews, who by _sanctified_ understood what was fitted for
a particular use, and by _unclean_ what was unfit for use, and therefore
was to be cast away. In that sense the Apostle, speaking of _meat_,
says, 1 Tim. iv. 5, _It is sanctified_ (that is, fitted for your use)
_by the Word of God and prayer_. Ver. iv. _Every creature of God_ (fit
for food) is _good, and nothing_ fit for food is _to be cast away_ as
unclean. The terms of the verses, thus understood, have a _rational_
meaning, namely, that when infidels are married to Christians, if they
have a strong affection for their Christian spouses, they are thereby
_sanctified_ to them—they are fitted to continue married to them;
because their affection to the Christian party will insure to that party
the faithful performance of every duty; and that if the marriages of
Christians and infidels were dissolved, they would cast away their
children as _unclean_—that is, by losing their affection for them, they
would expose them, after the barbarous custom of the Greeks, or at least
neglect their education; but by continuing their marriages, their
children are _holy_; they are preserved as sacred pledges of their
mutual love and educated with care.’
“Hence he thus paraphrases the text:—‘For the infidel husband is
sanctified—is fitted to remain married to the believing wife by his
affection for her; and the infidel wife is sanctified to the believing
husband by her affection for him; otherwise certainly your children
would be by you neglected as unclean, whereas indeed they are clean;
they are the objects of your affection and care.’”
“I do not know,” said Mr. Johnson, “that we are bound to admit Dr.
McKnight’s exposition of this passage merely because he was a
Presbyterian.”
“Certainly not; but one would naturally suppose that if there were any
infant baptism in the passage, a learned and eminent Presbyterian Doctor
of Divinity would be the man to find it. Perhaps _you_ can show it to be
there, though _he_ could not.”
“I do not say, Mr. Courtney, that infant baptism is _commanded_ in this
passage, but only that it is _recognized_. These children were not
_morally_ holy—that is self-evident. Yet they are called (‘_agia_’)
holy, by the same term which is sometimes used to designate the
_saints_; that is, the members of the church. Therefore, they must have
been church members; and as none were church members but those who had
been _baptized_, it follows that they must have been baptized. That is
what I call a demonstration.”
“And if it be so,” replied Mr. Courtney, “then the infidel wife and the
infidel husband had also been baptized, and were members of the church,
for they are called (_hagiarai_) ‘sanctified,’ the same term which in
this epistle (1st chapter and 2d verse) is applied to the members of the
church: ‘To them that are _sanctified_ in Jesus Christ, called to be
saints,’ etc. And again, in the 6th chapter and 11th verse, ‘But ye are
washed, ye are _sanctified_; but ye are justified in Christ,’ etc. These
_sanctified_ ones called to be saints, and these _sanctified_ ones who
were washed and justified in Christ, were, most undoubtedly, members of
the Corinthian Church. It was as such that Paul addressed them; and as
the same term (_sanctified_) is applied to the infidel and idolatrous
husband and wife who had a believing companion, it follows, of course,
that, infidel and idolatrous as they were, they _must_ have been members
of the church; and as none are church members but those who have been
baptized, they must certainly have been baptized. That is what _I call_,
not a demonstration, but a palpable absurdity; yet it stands _precisely_
upon the same ground with your demonstration.”
“We must give it up, Mr. Johnson,” said the Professor, “at least so far
as this text is concerned, for if it proves any thing, it proves _too
much_. It will be better for us to give up the children than to take the
unbelieving and idolatrous adults. If we ground our practice of
baptizing infants on _this passage_, we must baptize the unbelieving
_wife_ on the faith of her husband, and the unbelieving husband on the
faith of his wife, as well as their children on the faith of either.
This we have never done, and would not dare to do, so we must look for
some other passage to sustain our views.”
“Not quite yet,” said Mr. Courtney, smiling; “I have wrested this weapon
out of your hands, and I will now turn it against you.
“I will prove, _by this very passage_, that there was no such thing as
infant baptism known in the Corinthian Church, or in the mind of Paul,
when he was writing to them; but that, on the contrary, the Corinthian,
and, of course, all the other churches of that day, were _Baptist
Churches_, in which neither the _children_, nor the unbelieving
companions of believers, were baptized, or in any sense regarded as
church members. If the unbelieving husband or wife had been baptized and
made a member of the church, the question to which the Apostle is
evidently replying could never have been asked. The Jews, as we learn
from Ezra x. 3, were not permitted to continue in the marriage relation
with their Gentile wives. Now the question had come up in the Corinthian
Church whether a _Christian_ should not, under a similar regulation,
separate from an unbelieving and idolatrous companion. But if such
unbelieving consorts were by _the other’s faith entitled to church
membership_, and had, consequently, been baptized, such a thing as
separation on this ground would never have been thought of. It is
evident, therefore, that the infidel husband or the infidel wife were
not baptized or made church members. There is in the Scriptures not the
slightest allusion to any such church _members_ made by the faith of
_others_, and not by their own. These persons were, therefore, in every
sense, outsiders. They had no more connection with the church than any
other heathens had. But the Apostle says to their Christian companions,
You have no more reason to discard them on this account than church
members have to discard _their children_, for they are also unbelievers,
and without the pale of the church. The unbelieving husband and the
unbelieving wife, and your children, not their children, stand in the
same category. They are all without the church—all unbaptized—and thus
far, all equally unfit associates. But as your children, though not in
the church, are _holy to you_—that is, fit to associate with, so is the
unbelieving husband or the unbelieving wife, although they are also out
of the church.
“That this is the sense in which the Apostle uses the terms sanctified,
and holy, and unclean, is evident from the fact, that this is the _only_
sense in which what he says of the parties can be _true_, and this sense
corresponds perfectly with the common Scripture usage of the words.
Those things and persons among the Jews were called _unclean_ which a
holy person might not lawfully touch, use, or associate with. It seems,
from Gal. ii. 12, that they considered it very criminal to associate or
eat with Gentiles. Peter, it seems, had the opinion that only certain
_food_ was fit to eat, and that all other was unclean. And he said:
‘Lord, nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my
mouth.’ And Paul, 2 Cor. vi. 17, says, quoting from Isaiah: ‘Come out
from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing,’
or, more properly, ‘touch no _unclean_ person,’ ‘and I will receive
you,’ etc. Things unfit for holy persons to use were, Therefore, to them
said to be _unclean_. Food which such persons might not eat, was called
unclean food. And persons which they might not associate with, were
called unclean persons. In this sense, therefore, neither the
unbelieving children, nor the unbelieving husband, nor the unbelieving
wife, were to be regarded as unclean. They were all equally
sanctified—fit for the companionship and affection of their believing
parents and consorts.”
“That is all plain enough, Mr. Courtney; but I do not see what it has to
do with infant baptism.”
“Simply this. The infidel consorts of believers were not church
members—they had not been baptized. When Paul was asked by the church,
if the believing husbands and wives must separate from such, he says no;
it is as lawful for them to live together as it is for _you_ to live
with _your children_. But your children are _holy_ [fit associates] to
you, and so their companions are _sanctified_ [fit associates] to
_them_. Now there was no force or propriety in the comparison, unless
the children were in circumstances similar to the unbelieving
consorts—that is, they must _all_ have been alike out of the church, and
_all unbaptized_; and if the children of believing parents were
unbaptized, it was a Baptist Church; and if the church at Corinth was a
Baptist Church, then all the churches planted by the apostles were
Baptist Churches.”
“I do not feel inclined to grant all that,” said Mr. Johnson, “but we
have wasted too much time on this text already; let us proceed. But I
see it is of no use to argue with you, for you are disposed to construe
every passage so differently from what we have been accustomed to
consider their true meaning, that the most conclusive texts have no
weight with you whatever.”
“But pardon me, Mr. Johnson; do I not construe them according to the
natural and necessary meaning of the language? I appeal to Professor
Jones to say if I have shown any disposition to present any other than
the straightforward and obvious sense of the passages which we have
examined.”
“I begin to think,” rejoined the pastor, “that my brother Jones is
himself more than half a Baptist, which accounts for his being so easily
convinced.”
“Not at all, Mr. Johnson. I was very desirous to find infant baptism in
the Scriptures; I confidently believed it was there; I expected we could
have pointed to it without the slightest difficulty; but I acknowledge
that I can’t see the slightest trace of it in these proof texts which
our church has been so accustomed to rely upon. But though we have no
_command_ to practice it, we have authority which is quite equivalent,
and that is the _practice_ of the Apostles.”
“Certainly,” said Mr. Johnson, “I did not expect to find any such
absolute command as could not be explained away. It is chiefly on the
examples that we rely.”
“I hope, Mr. Johnson, you will do me the justice to acknowledge that I
have not explained away any command to baptize infants. I am sure I
would not willingly even attempt to explain away any command of Jesus
Christ, or his Apostles, on this or any other subject. I asked you to
show me a command to _baptize infants_, and you pointed to the
commission as a command to baptize those who are the _believing_
disciples of Jesus. You pointed, then, to an incidental command, to let
the children come to Christ, that he might lay his hands on them and
bless them. But as the children were not in the other command, so the
baptism was not in this. It was not for baptism, but for quite another
purpose that he bade them to come. You pointed then to a command and
promise given through Peter, but the command was _Repent_, and _then_ be
baptized, which, of course, excluded infants. And the promise was not a
promise of _baptism_, but of the gift of the Holy Ghost to those whom
_God should call_ to repentance, faith, and baptism, which excluded
infants from the promise as well as the command. You then pointed to the
place which we have last examined, which certainly contains not even the
shadow of a command to baptize infants; and so far as it teaches any
thing upon the subject, teaches that they were no more to be baptized on
the faith of their parents than unbelieving husbands are upon the faith
of their wives. You have not found the commandment, because it is not
there; I do not like to discourage you, but I assure you, you cannot
find the _example_ for the very same reason. This has been conceded,
over and over again, by the most learned and most zealous advocates of
infant baptism. They rest it on different grounds.
“Dr. Wall, the most eminent of them all, distinctly declares: ‘Among all
the persons that are recorded as baptized by the Apostles, there is no
express mention of any infants.’
“Bishop Burnet says: ‘There is no express precept or rule given in the
New Testament for the baptism of infants.’
“Richard Baxter says: ‘I conclude that all the examples of baptism in
the Scripture do mention only the administration of it to the professors
of saving faith; and the precepts give no other direction.’
“Martin Luther, the great reformer, says: ‘It cannot be proved that
infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or by the first Christians
after the Apostles.’
“Erasmus, another of the Reformers, says in his Notes on Rom. vi. 14:
‘The Apostle does not seem to treat of infants. It was not the custom
for infants to be baptized.’
“Olshansen, the famous Pedobaptist commentator, says: ‘There is
altogether wanting any conclusive proof passage for the baptism of
children in the age of the Apostles, nor can the necessity of it be
deduced from the nature of baptism.’
“Limbroch, another distinguished Pedobaptist professor of theology, and
the author of a ‘System of Divinity,’ says: ‘There is no express command
for it in the Scriptures. Nay, all those passages wherein baptism is
commanded, do immediately relate to _adult_ persons, since they are
ordered to be instructed, and faith is a prerequisite as a necessary
qualification.’ And again: ‘The necessity of infant baptism was never
asserted on any council before that of Carthage, held A. D. 418. We own
that there is no precept, nor undoubted instance in Scripture of infant
baptism.’
“Dr. Hanna, editor of the North British Review, says: ‘The baptismal
service [of the English church] is founded upon Scripture, but its
application to unconscious infants is destitute of any express
Scriptural warrant. Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants.’
“Dr. Knapp says: ‘There is no decisive example of infant baptism in the
Scriptures.’
“Neander, the great Pedobaptist historian, says: ‘It is certain that
Christ did not ordain infant baptism.’
“Even your Presbyterian Doctor Miller, of Princeton Theological
Seminary, says: ‘The fact is, that during the whole threescore years
after the ascension of Christ, which is embraced in the New Testament
history, we have no hint of the baptism of infants born of Christian
parents.’
“So says your able defender, Professor Moses Stuart: ‘Commands, or plain
and certain examples relative to it in the New Testament, I do not
find.’
“So says also your other celebrated writer on this subject, Dr. Leonard
Woods: ‘The New Testament is silent respecting the subject of infant
baptism.’ ‘It is evident that infant baptism is not introduced as a
subject of particular discussion. It is neither explicitly enjoined or
prohibited, and neither is the practice of baptizing children, nor the
absence of it, expressly mentioned.”’
“I declare, Mr. Courtney,” said the Professor, “this is very
discouraging. If such men as these, all of whom are on our side of this
controversy, and all members of churches that are in the habit of
baptizing infants—most, if not all of whom, received their own baptism
in infancy—many of whom were eminent ministers, and in the habit
themselves of baptizing infants—and some of the most eminent of whom
were _authors_, who, like Stuart, and Miller, and Wood, wrote expressly
upon this subject—if such men cannot find the ‘command,’ or the
‘example,’ it seems hardly worth while for _us_ to look for it.”
“I do not know,” said Mr. Johnson, “what they considered a plain
command, or an undoubted example, but I conceive that these statements
which Mr. Courtney has quoted so glibly, were (to say the least) very
‘_unguarded expressions_,’ which were by no means justified from the
facts in the case. I grant that there is no express _command_, but there
are many examples, with, if not plain enough to satisfy _Baptists_, are
such as will satisfy any candid inquirer after the truth.”
“I only ask you, gentlemen,” said Mr. Courtney, “to show me one which
you will YOURSELVES _say is an undoubted case_, after we have examined
the testimony. I only ask you to show me one which your own theological
writers and teachers will agree upon as an undoubted case—or one which
they will all agree upon as even a _probable_ case. I do not wish to
dissuade you from the attempt, but you could not find _one single
solitary instance_ if your very lives depended on the effort.”
“Certainly, Mr. Courtney,” said the pastor, “you are speaking without
due reflection, for you must know perfectly well that such examples are
as numerous as the household baptisms recorded in the Acts or referred
to in the Epistles.”
“Not at all,” said Mr. Courtney. “I understand what I am saying, and I
desire to be distinctly understood to mean that as there is not (as we
have already seen) any _command_, so neither is there a solitary
_example_, either among the _‘households’ or any where else_, in which
baptism was administered either to an infant or to any one else who did
not first profess faith or repentance. From the first of Matthew to the
end of Revelations, you may examine every passage in which baptism is
mentioned or alluded to, and you not only will find no infant plainly
spoken of as baptized, but you will not find so much as an allusion to
any such a class as the ‘Baptized children of the church.’”
“Surely,” replied Professor Jones, “you must be mistaken in this. I am
sure I have always thought that there was no more doubt about the
Scriptures teaching infant baptism, than about their teaching the
divinity of Jesus Christ. I am certain it must be somewhere in the
Scriptures.”
“Many people are certain that things are in the Scriptures that neither
they nor any body else can find there,” said Mr. Courtney. “Your Doctors
of Divinity have told you it was there, and you took it for granted that
they told you the truth. But if it is there, _you_ can find it and
_show_ it to me. And ever afterward you will know how to _give a reason_
for the faith that is in you on this subject.”
“But Mr. Courtney, we have not time to read over the whole Bible
to-night, to see if there is not some case mentioned; and if we do not,
we may overlook some case.”
“That is not necessary. Your Doctors of Divinity have done it for you;
and if they have found any case that had even the remotest squinting
toward infant baptism, they have paraded it before the world. Your
pastor here is doubtless perfectly familiar with every case that has the
slightest bearing upon the subject, and which presents even the shadow
of a proof in favor of the practice of your churches. But if you doubt
his information, or if he is unwilling to trust to his memory in the
case, suppose you take a Concordance, and refer to _every place_ where
baptism is mentioned. Here is Butterworth’s Concordance. It will
doubtless mention every place where the words occur; and we can thus
test the matter at once.”
“Certainly,” said the pastor. “I greatly prefer that to a reliance upon
my own memory; for though I can without any hesitation refer you to
several examples, as in the cases of Lydia, and the jailer, and
Stephanus, and Cornelius; yet as I might forget some place, I would
leave our defence less perfect than I desire.”
“We will then work by the Concordance, and will come to each of those
cases in their proper order,” said the Professor.
“Very good,” said the schoolmaster. “Now what is the first place?”
“It is,” said the pastor, “Matthew iii. 7—‘John saw many of the
Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism.’ We must admit there were
no infants there, but then you know we do not consider John’s baptism to
be Christian baptism, which was not practiced till after the death of
Christ; and so it does not matter who John baptized, or what class of
persons were baptized before the ascension of the Saviour, as it was
only then that _Christian_ baptism, properly so-called, began to be
administered. I am willing to grant, therefore, that there was no
mention made of the baptism of any infant until after that time.”
“That will,” said Mr. Courtney, “save us considerable trouble—but it
will deprive me of the advantage of at least one very convincing
argument against any inference for infant baptism. I think I could
easily prove to you that not only John’s baptism, but Christ’s baptism
(I mean that which is _called his_, though John says Jesus himself
baptized not, but his disciples), was just the same baptism which _He_
commanded after his death—and that since John required repentance and
works meet for repentance as preliminary to _his_ baptism, and Christ is
expressly said to have first _made disciples of_ those whom _he
baptized_ (John iv. 1), unconscious infants were of necessity excluded,
and would be, as a matter of course, _considered as excluded_ until an
express command was given to include them. But we will pass it by, and
the first case of baptism that comes up after the commission had, in
your view, fully established the Christian ordinance, was that on the
day of Pentecost, Acts 2d chapter. Suppose, Mr. Johnson, you just turn
to the chapter, and see if you can find any thing about infants there.”
“Oh, no. We do not pretend,” said the pastor, “that those three thousand
were any of them infants, or even children. There were evidently none
among them who could not understand the preaching of Peter and the rest,
for they _gladly_ received his word (41st verse) before they were
baptized, and continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and
fellowship afterward. They were all adults, and we must admit also that
they were all professed believers.”
“Very well,” said Mr. Courtney; “then we will go on to the next case;
but I cannot help remarking by the way that it is _very extraordinary_
if they ever baptized infants in those days—if they were considered as
included in the commission. I say it is _very remarkable_ that all these
three thousand should have been old bachelors or old maids, or, to say
the least, all unmarried, or if married, all childless. Yet such must
have been the case, for not a word is said about the _duty_ of bringing
their children for baptism—nor among them all was there a single one who
brought his little ones that they might be baptized at the same time
with his parent. I have been present several times when a number of
persons joined _your_ society, and there were always among them more or
less who brought their children with them. I do not suppose that you
ever recorded in your church the baptism of twenty adults, but that they
brought some children with them, yet you pretend that the Apostles
practiced infant baptism as you do, and still admit that here are three
thousand adults and not a single child—but go on to your next case.”
“It is,” said the pastor, who glanced at the Concordance, Acts viii. 12:
“‘But when they (the people of Samaria) believed Philip preaching the
things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they
were baptized.’”
“It seems, then,” said Mr. C., “that these were adults too; for they
were able to hear preaching, and exercise faith. They believed the
preaching before they were baptized, and none were baptized who did not
first believe. But you did not read all the verse: does it not go on to
say, that they were baptized, both the men, the women, _and their
children_?”
“No,” said Mr. Johnson, with a very perceptible degree of petulance in
his tone, “it only says, ‘both men and women.’”
“So then, here is another case, where a large company of men and women
were baptized, not one of whom were heads of families. It is _very
remarkable_, for if the Apostles taught and practiced infant baptism,
Philip had doubtless instructed them that ‘_it was their duty and their
privilege_’ to bring their infant children into the kingdom with
themselves. This is what _you_ teach, and this is what _your converts_
do. If Philip taught as you do, his converts were a ‘peculiar people’
truly. But let us pass on to the next case, which was that of Simon the
magician, in the next verse; but as you won’t imagine any infant baptism
there, we may pass to the next.”
“That was,” said the pastor, “the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts
viii. 13); and the next that of Saul (Acts ix. 18); and the next that of
Cornelius and his friends, which I have sometimes considered as a case
of household baptism, but on examination I do not see that there is any
mention of infants (Acts x. 47).”
“Please read it, Mr. Johnson,” said Professor Jones. “I have, I am sure,
always looked upon this as one of the proof passages.”
“I had such an impression myself,” said the pastor, “but I see it cannot
be relied upon. ‘Can any man forbid water that these should not be
baptized _who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we_? And he
commanded them to be baptized.’ Now it is true that Cornelius had a
_family_, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends; and
it seems _most likely_ that there would have been among them some
children, but still it does not seem absolutely certain. It is, I should
say, a _probable_ case, but I do not present it as a certain one.”
“How _can_ you, Mr. Johnson, I was ready to say how _dare_ you, as a
minister of the Gospel of truth, even pretend that there is any _doubt_
about the case at all? Could little infants in their mothers’ arms
‘receive the Holy Ghost,’ and ‘speak with tongues,’ and ‘magnify God,’
as these are said to have done in the 44th and 46th verses! The
_persons_, and the _only_ persons, who were commanded to be baptized,
were those who spake with tongues and magnified God. And it was on this
evidence, and only on this evidence, that ‘God had granted repentance
unto the Gentiles,’ that they were admitted to baptism at all. He who
could see a probable infant baptism in this, might see it just as well,
it seems to me, in the baptism of the three thousand who received the
word with gladness, on the day of Pentecost; or the five thousand who
received it a few days after; or in the case of the Samaritans, who
believed in the Gospel preached by Philip. If _they_ heard, repented,
and believed, _these_ did all that and more, for they received the
miraculous influences of the Holy Ghost _before_ their baptism; whereas
the others received them _after_ it, when they received them at all.
These did all that those did, and moreover spake with tongues, and
‘magnified God,’ and yet _you talk about their being unconscious
infants_.”
“Oh, well,” said the pastor, “you have no need to become so eloquently
indignant. I said I was willing to pass by this case. I will admit that
it is not even a _probable_ instance, if that will satisfy you. We shall
find certain ones enough, so we can afford to be liberal in this. You
will not be able, I trust, to dispose so easily of the next, which is
the baptism of Lydia, Acts xvi. 15—‘And of _her household_;’ which, as a
matter of course, would have some children in it.”
“I do not see how Lydia’s household should necessarily have children in
it. I am acquainted with several households in this town that have no
infants in them. You have none in yours. You have children, but none too
young to repent and believe, make credible profession of their faith,
and lead a Christian life; and if you should all be convinced, in the
revival which I believe God is now beginning to send upon our little
Baptist church, that you have never been baptized—and should all give us
satisfactory evidence of true piety—we would gladly do for you just what
Paul did for Lydia. We would baptize _you and your household_; but you
would not insist that we had baptized any unconscious babe.”
“But, Mr. Courtney, you must admit the principle that the ‘household was
baptized on the faith of its head.’ Lydia _believed_, and she _and her
household_ were baptized. Now, whether they were large or small, they
must have been baptized on their mother’s faith.”
“No, Mr. Johnson; it is that principle which I especially condemn and
deny. What I say is this—No one under the Gospel is to be baptized, or
to be regarded as in _any sense_ a member of Christ’s church, or to
enjoy any of the privileges of that church, _who has not first repented
and believed for himself_, and in his own proper person: and if you will
_show_ me _any case_ where any one, either old or young, male or female,
bond or free, adult or infant, was by the Apostles baptized, who had not
first given evidence of his repentance, faith, and conversion, then I
admit you have gained your point. I grant that Simon Magus was baptized
while yet unconverted but not before he _professed to be_, and gave such
evidence as was satisfactory at the time. For Luke says Simon also
_believed_ and was baptized. Now Lydia was baptized and her household
was baptized; but there is no evidence that her household were children.
There is no proof even that she was married, or ever had been. She may
or may not have had a husband; she may or may not have had children; she
may have been a widow, or she may have been an old maid. The record says
not a word on these points. It only says that her name was Lydia—that
she came from a distant city, called Thyatira—that she was engaged in
the business of selling purple, which we know, from other sources, was a
very respectable and profitable employment. We learn, also, that she was
keeping house, and living in such a comfortable way that she could
afford to give the Apostle and his companions a home at her house during
their stay. It appears also that she had a family (_oikos_), but whether
they were children or servants, or both, is not declared; but _one_
thing is certain, whether they were her offspring or servants, they were
_grown men_, for in the end of this same chapter (verse 40) we read that
as soon as Paul and Silas were liberated they _returned to the house of
Lydia and saw the brethren and comforted them_. They were therefore men,
who could be comforted, and not little children. They were also
believers, for otherwise they would not be called brethren.
“Hence the celebrated commentator, Dr. Adam Clarke, very properly
remarks: ‘_She attended unto the things._’ ‘She believed them and
received them as the doctrines of God, and in this faith she was joined
by her whole family, and in it they were all baptized.’ And again—‘The
first members of the church of Christ, at this place, were Lydia and her
family, and the next in all probability were the jailer and his family.’
“So far, therefore, from being certain or even probable that the
household of Lydia were infants, it is placed past all doubt by the
Scripture itself, that they were _men and brethren_, who believed and
were baptized; for though their _faith_ is not specially mentioned, yet
it is necessarily implied by the calling of them brethren.”
“But is it certain, Mr. Courtney, that these _brethren_ were the same
who composed Lydia’s family? Might they not have come in there merely to
meet the Apostle?”
“No, Mr. Johnson; Lydia and her family were the _only_ converts until
the Apostle was arrested and thrown into prison. While there, the jailer
and his family were converted, and these two families were all the
followers of Christ—_all the brethren_ that were in the place. But those
at the jailer’s house Paul and Silas had just left, when they came to
Lydia’s house, and saw and comforted the brethren there.”
“I think, Mr. Johnson,” said Professor Jones, “that we may as well let
this case go. We can afford to do it, as we have so many others. And it
evidently, so far from aiding us, testifies directly against us. The
same difficulties cannot exist in that of the jailer and his family,
recorded in the same chapter. I have always heard that referred to as a
most undoubted example.”
“Yes,” said the pastor. “The jailer was a man in the prime of life, as
is evident from the impulsive character of his behavior. He drew his
sword, called for a light, and he _sprang_ in, which indicates that he
was a man of activity and energy. Now such a man would be almost
certain, if he had a family at all, to have among them some little
children. I consider, therefore, that this is an unquestionable case.
The evidence amounts almost to an absolute demonstration.”
“It is a great pity,” said Mr. Courtney, “to spoil such a beautiful and
perfect demonstration; and if we had time, I would spare it for a few
minutes, that we might at our leisure admire its beauty and its
ingenuity. But as we probably have several other places to examine, we
cannot afford to trifle over this. You read, in verse 33, that ‘he was
baptized, he _and all his_, straightway.’ Now you say that ‘all his’
must include one or more infants. I only reply, that if so, they were
infants who could _hear_ the preaching of the gospel, and could
_believe_ it and _rejoice_ in God. For, verse 32, Paul _preached_ to him
and _all his_. And, in verse 34, he rejoiced, believing in God, _with
all his house_. Now, there is not in the record the slightest intimation
that there was a child on the premises. There was a _family_, but
whether of adults or children, servants or relations, is not said; but
it _is_ said, that they all _heard_ the Word, all _believed_, and all
_rejoiced_, just as certainly as they were all _baptized_. There is the
same testimony of the hearing, believing, and rejoicing as of the
baptism. The Baptists will baptize all the children in town, if they
will come to them believing and rejoicing in God—not, however, on their
parents’ faith, but on their own. Your next case is in the 18th chapter,
is it not?”
“Yes,” said the pastor (glancing at the Concordance which he still held
in his hand), “and the 8th verse. ‘And Crispus, the chief ruler of the
synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house. And many of the
Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized.’”
“Does it not say that their children were baptized with them on the
faith of their parents?”
“I read the whole text,” replied the pastor, gruffly.
“Then you must consider it a _very_ remarkable text,” said Mr. Courtney,
“for it declares that among these _many_ Corinthians, there was not a
man or woman who had an unconverted child; for if there had been one, it
would, if Paul had taught as _you_ do, have been brought up for baptism.
These early Christians were strange people. There were three thousand of
them at one time, five thousand a few days after in Jerusalem, a great
multitude in Samaria, and many more here in Corinth—_all childless_; for
it is incredible that _if they had children_, and had been instructed
that ‘_it was their duty and their privilege_’ to have them baptized,
that _some_ of them would not have done it. Nay, all of them _must have_
done it, or have stood in open _disobedience_ to the requirements of the
Gospel. We read of their believing, of their rejoicing, of their
breaking of bread, of their assembling for worship, of their ministering
to the saints—but never a word of their bringing their little children
to be baptized. They evidently did not obey this command, if any such
command was given them. And there is never an intimation of any reproof
of such inexcusable disobedience.”
“I must say, Mr. Courtney,” rejoined the pastor, “that you are the most
unreasonable man I ever tried to argue with. I have given you, at least,
two plain and unquestionable instances in which the _families were
baptized with the parents_, and yet you say that out of these eight or
ten thousand converts, there is not _one_ who had his children baptized.
To use an expression of your own, I do not see how you can _dare_ thus
to trifle with the Word of God!”
“I know, Mr. Johnson, that you gave us cases where _families_ were
baptized, and you can give us more; but you have not shown that these
_families contained a single infant child_, and _that is the point on
which the whole argument turns_. I reply to you in the language of you
own Pedobaptist historian, the celebrated and acute Neander: ‘We cannot
prove that the Apostles ordained infant baptism, from those places where
the baptism of a whole family is mentioned, as in Acts xvi. 33; 1 Cor.
i. 16. We can draw no such conclusion, because the inquiry is still to
be made _whether they were in these families any children of such an age
that they were not capable of any intelligent reception of Christianity,
for this is the only point on which the case turns._’ Ch. Hist. p. 198.
“I might retort by saying that you are exceedingly unreasonable in your
mode of argumentation. You say that the Apostles baptized infants. I ask
you to _prove_ it. You reply by saying he baptized _families_. Now if
there _was never a family without infants_, your argument would be
complete. But your own family has no infants in it. It consists of two
grown sons, a daughter nearly grown, and a servant. My family has no
infants in it: it consists of myself, my wife, and my nephew, who
assists me in my school. The family of our friend Mrs. Ernest has no
infants in it. It consists of her daughter, Miss Theodosia, of her son
Edwin, and her old servant, Aunt Chloe. All of whom are old enough to
believe and rejoice in God, as the jailor’s family did. Should they all
determine to obey the commandment of Jesus Christ and be baptized
according to the Gospel order, you can say of her, as Luke does of the
jailor and of Lydia—She was baptized, and her household. You see,
therefore, that if you would make your argument worth a straw, you must
go one step further, and prove that there _was an infant_ in the
families. It will not do to say that it is _probable_ there was one. It
is just as probable that there is one in yours, or mine, or Mrs.
Ernest’s, yet you know there is none. You must, if you build an argument
on the infant as being there, first _prove that it was there_. If you
can’t do this, the judgment goes against you of course. I need not prove
that it was not there. The burden of proof rests on you. If you go into
court and claim property as the heir of a certain woman’s _child_, you
must prove that there was _such a child_. If you should prove no more
than that the woman was _married_ and kept house, and had been heard to
speak of _her family_, the court would laugh at you. That she was
married, kept house, and had a family, you would be told, was not the
slightest legal proof _that she had a child_. And this is the point on
which your whole claim rests. Peter had a family, though so far as we
are informed it consisted only of his wife and his wife’s mother. And so
Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, had a family: who they were,
we do not know; whether children, grand-children, nephews, or servants.
His father and mother, and the father and mother of his wife; his own
brothers and sisters, or the brothers and sisters of his wife his clerks
or apprentices, if they had lodged in his house and eaten of his table,
would have been called—his family, _his house_; but whosoever they were,
they ‘_all believed on the Lord_,’ and so were not unconscious infants.”
“Have we not some other case, Mr. Johnson?” inquired the Professor.
“There is only one other,” replied the pastor, “and that is that of the
family of Stephanus, mentioned by Paul, 1 Cor. i. 16—‘I baptized also
the household of Stephanus.’”
“And that need not detain us long,” said Mr. Courtney, “for your own
Presbyterian Doctor of Divinity, McKnight, in his excellent Commentary,
says, ‘The family of Stephanus seem all to have been _adults_ when they
were baptized; for they are said, chap. xvi. 15, _to have devoted
themselves to the ministry of the saints_.’
“We have now examined _all_ your ‘examples,’ and the infants are not yet
discovered. Lydia’s family are called ‘brethren.’ The jailer’s family
are said ‘to believe and rejoice in God.’ That of Crispus ‘believed in
the Lord.’ And that of Stephanus ‘addicted themselves to the ministry of
the saints.’ And, Cor. xvi. 16, the church is directed to ‘submit itself
unto such.’ You have not only failed to prove that there were any
infants, but I have proved (though by the rules of debate I was under no
obligation to do so) that they were all adults, or at least old enough
to hear, believe, obey, and rejoice in the Gospel. I leave it now for
you to say yourselves, whether there is, in any of these instances, a
_single certain example_ of the baptism of an unconscious infant?”
Mr. Courtney paused, but neither of the others felt disposed to answer;
after waiting a moment, he continued:
“But I am not willing to pass so readily from these passages. You are
accustomed, Mr. Johnson, and so are all your ministers, to present these
as proof-texts for infant baptism. You will probably go and do it again,
though I pray that God may give you a better mind. They stand as
proof-texts in your ‘Confession of Faith,’ and yet, in truth, neither
they nor you _have ever believed them to be such_, or else you are more
inconsistent in your conduct than sensible men are often found to be.”
“Why, sir, what do you mean? Do you intend to insinuate, sir, that we
Presbyterian ministers teach as God’s truth what we do not believe?”
“I mean to say, Mr. Johnson, that you teach for God’s truth what you do
not practice—and you know a good man’s practice _ought_ to correspond to
his belief. You teach that the _families_ of believers are to be
baptized on the faith of the _head of the family_. Out of the thousands
and thousands of people who are recorded as having believed and been
baptized, you find three or four instances in which a whole family
believed, and were baptized at the same time, and they are mentioned as
a certain man and his family. Now you say if these three or four
_families_ were baptized, _all_ families of believers are entitled to
baptism. This is what your argument amounts to, if it has any force at
all. Now, in every one of these instances the _whole family_, every
member of it, is said to have been baptized.”
“Very well,” said Mr. Johnson, “so much the better for our cause—so much
the more likely that it included _the infants_.”
“It may be so much the better for your _cause_, but it is so much the
worse for your _consistency_. You teach that all the family were
included in these baptisms, but _you do not baptize all the family_. Are
not my wife and my nephew members of my family? but you would not on my
faith baptize either of them. Is not old Aunt Chloe a member of Mrs.
Ernest’s family? yet you never have baptized her, or urged on Mrs.
Ernest the duty of bringing her _servant_ as well as her children. Are
not children of ten or twelve, or fifteen or twenty years of age, as
much members of the _family_ as the baby is? If these passages prove
that _one_ member of the family may be baptized on the faith of the
head, they prove equally that every other member may be; and your only
consistent ground is that occupied by Mr. Barnes in his Notes on 1 Cor.
i. 16—‘Household (_oikon_). the house, the family. The word comprises
the whole family, including adults, domestics, slaves, and children.’ …
‘It was the custom doubtless for the Apostles to baptize the _entire
household, whatever might be the age, including domestics, slaves, and
children_. The head of a family gave up the _entire household_ to God.’
If you and Dr. Barnes _believe_ this, you ought to _practice_ it. If
Paul baptized all the children, and all the domestics, and all the
slaves, and all the other members of the family, of _whatever age_, you
ought to do it too. You are unworthy to have charge of a Christian
church, if you do not, at least, _attempt_ to do it. You ought to urge
upon your members the ‘duty and privilege’ of bringing their _slaves_,
where they have them—their men servants and their maidens—their
domestics, male or female, ‘_of whatever age_,’ and all their children,
whether infant or adult, to be baptized upon the faith of the head of
the family. Nor do I see how you could well omit the _wife_, for
although Dr. Barnes has not included her, she certainly belongs to the
_family_ as much as the ‘domestics.’ If they refuse to perform this
duty, which was thus enjoined, as you believe, by the Apostles, you can
not do less than call them to account for their neglect. If they will
still prove obstinate, you must exclude them as disobedient to one of
the ‘undoubted’ ordinances of the church of Christ. They are _certainly_
under as much obligation to bring _all_ as to bring the infants.”
“Yes,” said the pastor; “but where they have come to years of
discretion, we think it best to leave them to come themselves, as an act
of personal obedience.”
“But you have no _right_ to leave them, even if you do think best. Lydia
did not, according to your account of the matter, leave hers to come
when they pleased. The jailer did not leave his—he brought them all
_straightway_. If the head of the family is to have his _household_
baptized, on the authority of these examples, he is not at liberty to
leave them to come of themselves It is his bounden duty to exert all his
authority as husband, father, and master, to bring his whole family at
once to the baptismal basin; and it is your bounden duty, as a minister
of Christ, if you believe such things, to urge the subject upon their
attention. Call upon them for the immediate performance of their
obligations; and it is the duty of the church to deal with those who
neglect or refuse. But this you never have done. There are none of your
ministers who do it; and I venture to say that Mr. Barnes himself has
never done it. You never will do—you, none of you, dare to do it. Your
own consciences would recoil from the introduction, in this way, of
infidels, and blasphemers, and irreligious men and women, into the
church of Christ, on the faith of their father or master. As you would
be afraid to do it yourselves, you do not believe in your hearts that
the Apostles did it. It is altogether inconsistent with every thing we
know of their character, and the nature of the churches they
established; and it would therefore be fair to infer that these families
which were baptized were families of believers, even if they had not
been called brethren in the case of Lydia, or said to believe and
rejoice in God in the jailer’s—to speak with tongues and glorify God in
that of Cornelius—to believe in the Lord Jesus in that of Crispus, and
to give themselves to the Christian ministry in that of Stephanus.”
“I did not expect when we commenced,” replied Mr. Johnson, “to be able
to convince you of your errors in regard to this subject. I have often
observed that the more one reasons with a Baptist, the more firmly he
fixes him in his baptistical notions. I have, therefore, had no desire
for any such controversy as this. It was only to satisfy my friend and
brother, Professor Jones, that I engaged in it at all—and I must now beg
leave to decline any further argument upon the subject.”
“Pardon me, Mr. Johnson, if in the heat of debate I have made use of any
expression that has seemed improper, or in any degree disrespectful to
you. I did not intend to do so, and regret most sincerely if my feelings
have led me to overstep the bounds of gentlemanly discussion.”
“Oh, I do not,” resumed the pastor, “decline further disputation on that
ground; though I might, I think, fairly complain of some of your
expressions. I merely do not wish to continue a discussion which is not
likely to result in any good.”
“Permit me to suggest,” said Professor Jones, “that if we leave off here
we acknowledge ourselves to be completely routed, for it is certain that
we have not yet been able to produce a single undoubted precept or
example of infant baptism from the Scriptures. But since such men as
Woods, and Wall, and Stewart, and Coleman, and Neander, concede this,
and yet are the firm advocates of the baptism of infants, _there must be
some other ground_ on which it can be sustained.”
“That is true, sir,” replied the pastor. “And I have purposely reserved
our strongest argument for the last. But I am sure it will have no
influence on Mr. Courtney, nor any other Baptist.”
“But, Mr. Johnson, it may have some effect on me. And I hope you will do
us the favor to present it for my benefit.”
“We will not have time to-night,” replied the other, “and for the
present at least I am tired of the subject. Perhaps you will hear
something at church to-morrow that will satisfy your mind.” And with
this intimation the Rev. gentleman took his leave, and the parties
separated.
THE DAY AFTER THE SEVENTH NIGHT.
Theodosia is baptized according to the commandment, and the example of
the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Day After the Seventh Night.
We left Theodosia in that most distressful condition, in which duty,
struggling with inclination, distracts and rends the mind with agonizing
efforts to decide one way or the other.
With her this was not a slight or momentary strife. It was the terrible
agony of one who struggles for his very life. Dearer to her than life
was Mr. Percy’s love; it was her first love; it was her only love; it
was a pure and holy love; it had been sanctioned by her mother’s fond
approval; it had been sanctified by their formal espousals; the day had
been set for the consummation of their happiness; she had fully given up
her whole heart to it; it was the great, controlling, soul-absorbing
passion of her being; all the hopes of life were centered here. To tear
such love from out the heart, was to rend the heart itself. Yet she felt
it must be done; and God gave her strength to do it. All day long, as we
said, she had crouched at her mother’s side, or followed her like her
shadow. She seemed to feel that something terrible impended over her,
and that she was safer in her mother’s presence. Not one word was spoken
by either of them on the one subject which occupied the minds of both.
Mrs. Ernest observed that, as the day advanced, her daughter’s face
became more natural in its expression. The lines of agony began to
disappear. The eyes no longer looked so strange and restless; nor did
they turn to her, as in the morning, with that beseeching gaze of agony
which almost broke her heart. But still, she noticed that her lips often
moved, though she uttered no word; and when she spoke to her about the
business of the household, it was some time before she answered, and
then slowly, and often in such a way as to show that she had not fully
comprehended her meaning. Her mind was evidently far away.
About three o’clock she laid down her worsted, and taking up the
Testament which lay upon her work table, turned to the fourteenth
chapter of Luke, and read: “If any man come to me and hate not his
father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea,
and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple; and whosoever doth not
bear his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of
you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first and counteth the
cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it, lest haply after he hath
laid the foundation and is not able to finish it, all that behold it
begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, but was not able to
finish. Or what king going to make war against another king, sitteth not
down first, and consulteth whether he be able, with ten thousand, to
meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? or else, while
yet the other is a great way off he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth
conditions of peace. So likewise whosoever he be of you that forsaketh
not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.”
“Mother,” said she, looking up, and speaking as though her mother had
known what she was reading, “you will not make it necessary for me to
forsake you too?”
“Why, what do you mean, my daughter?”
“Jesus says here, that if I do not forsake all for him, I cannot be his
disciple.”
“Yes, my child, but that has nothing to do with baptism. It means that
you must give up all _to be religious_.”
“To be religious, mother, is to _obey Jesus Christ_. ‘If ye love me,’ he
says, ‘keep my commandments.’ One of the plainest and most positive of
those commandments is, ‘_Believe_ and _be baptized_.’ Baptism is
commanded as much as faith. It makes, indeed, a part of the _same
command_. I trust I have believed; but I _have never been baptized_.
Even if the sprinkling which I received in my childhood had been
baptism, _it was no act of mine_. I have not obeyed: _I—must—do—it_!”
She pronounced these last four words slowly, with a slight pause between
each of them, as though each cost her heart a pang to speak it, and yet
it must be said.
“Well, my child, if you must, you must.”
“But, mother, you will not forbid me? You will not make it needful to
disobey you as well as to—” But she could not finish the sentence, and
left her mother to guess her meaning.
“No, my dear child, I will not absolutely _forbid_ you. You know what I
think about these things. Baptism is not essential to salvation, and I
had much rather you would remain where you are. I cannot bear to see you
sacrifice all your prospects in life for a mere whim, for I don’t see
but what one baptism is just as good as another. And if you were not in
such distress, I would certainly oppose you, but I see it would do no
good; and though it will mortify and distress me, I will not forbid you.
And if you are determined to do it at all hazards, and it will relieve
you of a single pang, I give you my consent.”
“Thank you, mother! You do not know what a load you have taken off my
heart.” And she buried her face in her mother’s lap, and wept aloud for
several minutes. Then she arose, wiped her eyes, and went into her own
room and closed the door.
Shall we invisibly follow her there; see her on her bended knees pour
out her soul to God; hear her cry for help with those inarticulate
groanings which the Apostle speaks of; see the resolve take form and
substance in her heart; see her arise with that same strange calmness
which we observed after she had prayed the day she came up from
witnessing the baptism in the river; see her open her little
writing-desk, and select a sheet of paper; take her pen and write, “My
Dear Mr. Percy;” then pause, lay down her pen, cover her face with her
hands, pressing upon her eye balls, as if to shut out some terrible
vision, while a strong convulsive shudder quivers through her frame? It
is past; she uncovers her face; looks up beseechingly to heaven;
composes herself; takes up her pen, and writes as follows:
“I received yours on Friday evening. To say that its contents
gave me _very great pain_, would but feebly express the truth. I
was not only distressed, but most grievously disappointed; for I
had supposed you were as sincere and earnest in your desire to
know and do your whole duty in regard to this subject as I was
myself. Your letter undeceived me. I do not complain of it. I am
thankful for your expressions of interest in my welfare, and of
affection for myself. I will not deny that I had no higher
ambition, so far as this world is concerned, than to secure your
approbation. But I cannot, _even to please you_, venture to
disobey my Saviour, I intend to be baptized to-morrow. I am
aware, after what you have said, that by doing so, I shall not
only ‘mortify and distress’ you, but I shall renounce all claim
to your love. When you return, therefore, I shall be to you but
as one dead. I pray you so to consider me; it will be better for
us both. And if you will spare me farther pain, I do entreat you
never to solicit a renewal of our engagement. It will not give
you as much pain to read this as it does me to write it; but I
have weighed it well. I say every word deliberately, though
sorrowfully. I will not cease to pray for you. And will you not
sometimes pray for her who _was_ your
“THEODOSIA.”
This letter she folded, enclosed, sealed, and directed to Mr. Percy’s
lodging place, and called the old servant, Aunt Chloe, and directed her
to take and leave it there.
This done, she returned to her mother with something almost like a smile
of joy upon her face. The peace of God was in her heart; and if she was
not _happy_, she was no longer wretched. With a low, but calm and almost
cheerful voice, she told her mother what she had done, and asked her to
make suitable preparation for her baptism. At night she sent a line to
Uncle Jones, requesting him, if he could, to be present; and another to
Mr. Courtney, announcing her intention to ask for baptism. She spent
most of the time in her own room, alone, until the hour of rest, and
then slept sweetly till morning. When she awoke, her first thought was
expressed in the language of the Psalmist—“I laid me down and slept; and
I awoke again, for the Lord preserved me.” She felt now that she was, in
a peculiar sense, in the care of God. She had given all, and had
obtained all. She had given up self, and obtained Jesus in all his
fullness, and God in all his boundless power and love. Jesus was _her_
Saviour; God was _her_ God. Yes, the mighty Maker of the worlds, the
omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, was not only her _God_, but her
_Father_. She felt this morning that she might ask what she would. And
yet such was the overwhelming conviction in her heart, that her loving
Saviour and her kind Father knew so infinitely better than herself what
she most needed, and what would be really best, that she could only
pray: “‘Thy will be done;’ I leave it all with thee. Do what thou seest
best. Give joy or sorrow; give comfort or affliction; give life or
death. Thou knowest best—thou dost all things well. I trust myself—my
soul and body; my happiness here and hereafter; all I am, all I have;
all I feared, all I hoped for—I give all up to thee. Thou only art my
portion now; and I am thine—_all_ thine; I _delight_ to do thy will, oh,
my Beloved. I have now no other love but thee, my Saviour, my Father, my
Friend. Thou art my all. Jesus is mine, and I am his. What can I want
beside? Blessed Saviour, may I never leave thee—may I never grieve thee
any more. Lord, thou knowest all things. Thou knowest that I love thee.
Yes, I love thee, and I will keep _all_ thy commandments. Show me thy
ways. Thou shalt guide me by thy counsels, and afterward receive me into
thy glory. Yes, me—even me—poor, lost, rebellious sinner that I am. Thou
wilt love me freely. Thou wilt save me through thine own infinite mercy.
Mercy, all mercy. Not for works of righteousness which we have done, but
of his own mercy, he saves us. Jesus, I thank thee. Oh, make me love
thee more.”
With such incoherent ejaculations of trust, and praise, and prayer, she
rose, and prepared for church.
It was strange how the news had got abroad, yet it had spread like
wild-fire through the town that Miss Theodosia Ernest would that morning
apply for baptism. At an early hour the school-house was crowded to its
utmost capacity, and before the services commenced, even the windows and
the doors, and every place was occupied from which one could hope to
catch a glimpse at what was going on within, or hear a word of what was
said.
The church bells began to ring. Mrs. Ernest had all the morning been
distracted between affection for her lovely child, which prompted her to
go to the school-house, and pride, which urged her to go and sit in her
own pew as though nothing had happened. Curiosity to see and hear what
Theodosia would do and say, and what sort of people these Baptists were,
joined with affection in pleading for the school-house; and a sort of
indefinite dread of what _Mr. Johnson_ might say, came to the help of
pride. And, it may be, there was something like a mistaken sense of
religious duty which spake on that side also. However this may be, the
first few strokes of the costly and solemn-sounding bell which had been
accustomed to call her to church, seemed suddenly to decide her.
“I want you to understand, Theodosia,” said she, “that though I do not
forbid, yet I do not altogether approve of what you are about to do, and
I cannot sanction any such proceedings by my presence. I don’t know what
Mr. Johnson would think of me, if I should forsake our own dear church
to wander about after these new comers.”
This was a new disappointment to the sensitive child. She had greatly
relied on her mother’s presence to sustain her in the untried scenes
through which she was about to pass. She had also hoped that Uncle Jones
would call and go with her, but he had not come, and she was alone. Yet
she was _not alone_, for she looked up as her mother was speaking, and
in her heart said again, “Not my will, but thine be done!”—And the
Spirit replied, “Fear not, for _I am with thee_; and be not dismayed,
for I am thy God!” “When my father and my mother forsake me the Lord
will take me up.”
I do not say that she felt no natural misgivings, no modest shrinking
from going alone into a house filled with strangers, with the
consciousness that every eye was on her, and every heart full of
curiosity to see how she would look, what she would do, and what she
would say; but she thought much less of this than my reader would
naturally suppose. The peace of God was in her heart, and it gave to her
mind and her manner a quiet yet determined calmness, and a collectedness
of thought and perfect self-possession which was surprising even to
herself.
She set out therefore _alone_; for Edwin had not returned from
Sabbath-school. Two or three times the mother turned and looked after
her as she went, and wished she _could_ consistently, and without
displeasing Mr. Johnson, have gone with the dear child.
Mr. Courtney had taken it for granted that Uncle Jones or some of the
family would accompany her, and when he saw her coming by herself, he
hastened to meet her, and conducted her to a seat.
The preacher was not the same who had been there before, but a stranger
who had providentially been sent to fill his place. He was a man about
forty years of age, rather below than above the ordinary size; his
complexion dark, his hair slightly silvered with gray, and the top of
his head almost bald. His eyes, and indeed the whole expression of his
face, were somewhat peculiar. He seemed to have been long in feeble
health, and his face was marked with lines of suffering. Its habitual
expression was one of _sad and sorrowful resignation_. The casual
observer saw in it no evidence of lofty genius, or of even extraordinary
talent—and yet he was an extraordinary man. Though he had but slight
acquaintance with the technicalities of logic, he was a clear and
powerful reasoner. Though he knew little of the scholastic theories of
theology, he was wonderfully familiar with the teachings of Jesus and
the Apostles. Though he professed no acquaintance with the metaphysical
subtleties of mental philosophy, he knew full well how to convince the
understanding and move upon the hearts of his hearers. He was not
familiar with the ancient classics, yet his style was pure and strong,
and not entirely void of elegance. His tones and gestures were not
formed by any rules of oratory, yet he was sometimes very eloquent. When
he first rose, there was a slight rusticity in his manner, and something
in his dress which for a single moment struck Theodosia unpleasantly;
but there was, also, such an air of trusting meekness, that this
impression was removed almost as soon as made. His text was John xv.
14—“Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you.” And the main
object of his sermon was to show the vast difference which there is
between the so-called obedience which springs from hope, or grows up
from fear, and the willing and _true_ obedience of the Gospel which is
produced by _love_. It was a deep, heart-searching discourse, and must
have left on every attentive bearer’s mind the sad conviction that
genuine Gospel obedience is much more rare than is commonly imagined. We
cannot follow him through all his argument; but we may not omit one
portion of it. “The obedience of _love_,” said he, “makes no division of
Christ’s commandments into essential and non-essential. ‘Ye are my
friends if ye do _whatever_ I command you,’ whether _you_ think it
important or not. We know that we love him when we have respect unto
_all_ his commandments. The obedience of _hope_ says, how much _must I
do to_ be permitted to enter heaven? The obedience of _fear_ asks, what
may I omit to do, and yet escape from hell? The obedience of _love_
simply inquires, ‘Lord, what wilt THOU have me to do?’ It does not ask,
what _must_ I do? but what _can_ I do to show my love for Jesus? It does
not ask how far I _can venture to disobey_, and keep my hope of heaven?
How far off can I follow Jesus, and yet not be disowned of him? Oh,
never, never! He who will obey Christ no farther than he may fancy is
_essential to salvation_, has never obeyed him at all. Love of self, not
love of Christ, is his controlling motive. He is striving not to please
his Saviour but to secure his _own personal happiness_. Love teaches a
different way. Love _delights_ to do his will. Love delights to do all
his will. Love never asks, what is essential to salvation? but what did
Jesus Christ _command_? Love never asks, how little _may_ I do? but how
much _can_ I do? If _he_ commands, that is reason enough. He is no
_loving_ child who will obey his father only in those things which he
must do, or be disowned and disinherited. He is no _loving_ child who
will do all he dare to grieve a doting parent whom he believes will
pardon all, and love him though he grieves him. He who truly loves him
will obey his _slightest desires_ as well as his most peremptory
commands. He who truly loves will study to know all his will, and in his
very heart _delight_ to do it—_not_ to avoid disinheritance—not to
secure his estate—not to enjoy his father’s bounty, either present or
prospective—but simply because the father _wishes_, _asks it_, or
commands it.
“And yet men call themselves obedient children of God, while they refuse
to do what he commands, because he does not add to the command a promise
of heaven or a threatening of hell. Oh, it is terrible to think how
fearful will be their disappointment! Obeying only to secure salvation
is itself sufficient proof that they have not obeyed unto salvation.
Omitting all but what they think essential to salvation is of itself
sufficient proof that they have omitted all that _is essential_ to
salvation. The faith of the Gospel _works by love_, and love is obedient
to _all_ his commandments, so far as it is able to know and to do them.
When, therefore, Christ Jesus gives a plain command, as that to ‘believe
and be baptized,’ love will not be content merely to believe. It will do
both. It will do _whatever_ Christ commands, and he who stops because
there is no penalty of hell fire attached to the last, as there is to
the first part of the command, is no friend to Jesus. He does not obey
from love to _Jesus_, but from love to _self_. And further, the
obedience of love takes the command as it is given. It obeys in the same
order that Christ requires. It not only does the very acts which he
commands, but does them in that very _way_ that he requires them to be
done. If Christ commands _first_ to believe and _then_, when thus
prepared, to be baptized, the obedience of _love_ will never venture to
_reverse_ Christ’s order. It will not seek to be first baptized and then
believe. And as the command requires _personal_ obedience, it will never
seek to substitute obedience _rendered by another_. Christ commands
_you_ yourselves in your own right, and for yourselves, to _believe_,
and then to be _baptized_. It may be you have not done either. Oh, what
a fearful state! Not to have even begun to obey! It may be you have
believed, but are fancying that an act done by your parents, and your
pastor, without your knowledge or consent, and which _they called_
baptism, has released you from the obligation to obey yourself. But do
not mistake. The religion of Christ is a _personal_ religion. The
obedience it requires is an intelligent and personal obedience. You must
be baptized for yourself. It must be an act of your own. He that
believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. The one is to be your _own_
act as much as the other. But this command you have never even _tried_
to obey. You have never made the slightest effort. Oh, if you _love_
Jesus, will you not at least _try_ to obey _all_ his commandments?
“One thought more. The obedience of _love_ does what HE commands. ‘Ye
are my friends, if ye do whatever _I_ command’—not what others may put
in the place of it—not what you may fancy would do as well. You are not
to ‘teach for doctrines the commandments of men.’ Jesus is the sole
Lawgiver of his church. _His_ commandments, given in person or by those
who spake as they were moved by his Holy Spirit, we must obey. If he was
immersed in Jordan, then John’s baptism was immersion. If John’s baptism
was immersion, then the baptism administered by Jesus and his disciples
was immersion; for John says, Jesus went into a certain place, and there
he tarried and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Ænon at the same
time. And the Pharisees heard how that Jesus made and baptized more
disciples than John. Whatever one did the other did. It was the same
_thing_, because it is called in the same connection by the same name.
And if Jesus and John immersed, it was immersion that he commanded. Yet
_men_ have done away with what HE commanded, and substituted sprinkling
in its place. To believe and be sprinkled, therefore, is not to _do
whatever he commands_, but to teach and practice for his commands the
doctrines of men; and of those who do such things he says, ‘In vain do
they worship me.’ Don’t call me bigoted for reminding you of this. They
are not _my_ words, but the words of Jesus Christ. It is _he_ who says
it; and I believe that he _means_ just what he says. Popes and
cardinals, bishops and priests, have met in solemn conclave and
_changed_ the ordinance of Jesus. _They_ have substituted the sprinkling
of infants for the immersion of believers. This was ordained by Christ,
and that by anti-Christ. Yet there are many professed believers, men who
would be grieved if I should intimate that they did not _love_ the
Saviour—who in his name and as his ordinance practice these commandments
of men. The very time and place when and where these changes were thus
made by popes and councils is recorded by themselves. They claim to have
_authority_ as the vicegerents of Christ on earth to make such changes.
But the obedience of love will never recognize _their_ rule. It obeys
_Jesus Christ_. It does whatever =he= commands. And whenever professed
religious teachers, whether Catholic or Protestant, teach other
commandments as a substitute for his—it rejects them with disdain.”
After the sermon, he came down from the little platform which had been
erected for his convenience, and announced the church as ready to
receive applicants for membership—requesting if there were any present
who desired to unite with it, that they would come forward while the
brethren sang a hymn, and take a seat allotted for that purpose.
The brethren immediately commenced singing the hymn—
“’Tis religion that can give Sweetest pleasures while we live; ’Tis
religion can supply Solid comfort when we die.”
Before they had completed the first couplet, Theodosia arose and walked
to the appointed seat. And when they had finished, the minister asked
her to give to the church some account of her religious experience, that
they might be able to judge of the nature of her faith and hope.
My reader, who is familiar with her strength of mind, firmness of
purpose, clearness of conception, and habitual command of the most
appropriate language, can form little conception of the surprise which
was excited, as much by her manner as her words. She did not wait to be
questioned, and simply answer yes or no, as is customary on such
occasions; but modestly arose and turned her face to the audience, and
began to relate in a low, but still in a perfectly audible voice, her
experience of grace before she made any profession of religion. The
house was still as death. Every eye was fixed, every ear attentive to
even the slightest modulation of her voice. After describing, in her
modest and simple, yet most impressive style, her conviction and
conversion, she paused a moment, as if to think of the propriety of
saying what was yet upon her mind.
“And why,” inquired the minister, who was ignorant of her history, “did
you not _then_ unite with the people of God?”
“At that time,” she continued, “I had rarely been in any other but a
Presbyterian house of worship. I regarded Presbyterians as the true
church of Christ. Perhaps I would not be going too far if I should say,
that I regarded them as the _only_ true church, or at least as the only
church that was not involved in some most important error of doctrine or
practice—it was my mother’s church;” and her voice faltered, and eyes
filled with tears, as she said it. “It was the church in which God’s
truth had been made effectual to my conversion. I had no shadow of a
doubt that it was _the church_, if not the _only_ church, and with them
I _did unite_. Nor, until last Sabbath, did I ever have a doubt that I
was right in doing so. Last Sabbath, you will recollect, one of your
number was baptized. I had the curiosity to go to the river. As I saw
her plunged beneath the water, the thought impressed itself upon my
mind, _if that’s baptism, I have never been baptized_; for whatever
baptism may be, it must always be the same—‘One Lord, one faith, one
baptism.’ I went home and commenced a careful and thorough investigation
of the subject. I found that it was immersion, and not sprinkling, that
Jesus commanded. It was this which HE himself; as our Example, submitted
to in the river of Jordan. It was this which his disciples practiced in
his life. I was this which he commanded after his death. It was this,
therefore, which he required of me. I have not yet obeyed him, but I
_desire_ ‘to _do whatever he commands_ me.’ Mine is, I humbly trust, the
‘obedience of love.’ I have come here to-day, and it is the first time
in my life that I have ever been in a Baptist Church. I have come to ask
you to _baptize me_, if you think me worthy, according to the
commandment of the Lord Jesus.”
“Why, this is wonderful!” exclaimed the minister, as she resumed her
seat.
“It is the Lord’s doing,” rejoined Mr. Courtney, “and it is wonderful in
our eyes.”
“Brethren, what will we do in regard to this application?”
“I move,” said one, “that she be baptized, and received into the
fellowship of the church.”
This was, of course, unanimously determined on.
“When will you be baptized, my sister?” inquired the minister.
“As soon as it may suit your convenience, sir. I am ready now.”
“Then after prayer we will at once proceed to the water’s side. Let us
pray.”
They kneeled, and offered up a short and fervent prayer that God would
own the ordinance about to be administered in his name—bless her who was
to be its recipient—fill her with the comforts of the Gospel—make her a
faithful and useful Christian, and at death receive her into his
heavenly kingdom.
When Satan finds that he cannot prevent the performance of a religious
duty, he often strives to render its performance as distressing as he
can. Theodosia had not yet left the house before she began to be
assailed by the most terrible temptations. First came the magnificent
church, with its soft light, its cushioned pews, its richly carpeted
aisles, its tasteful and costly pulpit, its deep-toned organ, and its
well-trained choir, which had all her life been the accompaniments of
her public devotions. And she could not but contrast their rich,
luxurious elegance and comfort, with the rough platform, the naked,
dirty floor, the hard benches, and harsh, unskillful voices which had
surrounded her to-day. In that splendid church she saw her mother
weeping over her daughter’s apostasy—her brother showing no interest in
her fate—her uncle, whom she loved as a father, and upon whose
approbation she had confidently relied, yet he had not come near her,
though she had earnestly requested his presence—her pastor, who had
taught her in childhood, and prayed over her at her conversion—and there
was yet another, whom she now scarcely dared to think of. They were all
there—all happy, all united. She only was a poor outcast from all—yes,
yes, from _all she loved_. With her own rash hand she had cut the ties
which bound her to her kindred and her friends. She had left all the
_elegance_ so congenial to her delicacy and refinement of taste. She had
left all the affection so necessary to the very life of her fond,
clinging, loving heart, and here she stood _alone_ among these
_strangers_, whom she felt instinctively, with one or two exceptions,
had scarcely a sentiment or taste in common with her own. Then, as she
was walking to the river, they passed the _very spot_ where she and Mr.
Percy stood on the previous Sabbath; and in a single moment, what
visions of affluence and ease, of elegant _social_ enjoyment, of
domestic bliss—all the happiness of the loved and loving _wife_,
extending down through many long and blissful years—came vividly before
her mind. She could see nothing else. She forgot for a moment where she
was, and why she came there. She walked on unconsciously. Unconsciously
she took the offered arm of the minister as he came to conduct her into
the river. The touch of the water recalled her to herself. She paused,
and suddenly withdrew her arm, clasped her hands together, and looked up
to heaven, and so stood for some moments, lost in silent prayer. Those
who could see her face, observed the expression of distress and terror
(which they attributed to a natural timidity at entering the water)
suddenly gave place to one of joy and confidence as she again placed her
arm within the minister’s and walked on. Jesus had heard her prayer—“Oh,
Lord, save me! Give me strength to make all this sacrifice for thee!
Thou art my Saviour. Thou hast commanded this. I do it in obedience to
thee. Oh, leave me not. Help, Lord—I have no other helper—thou art _now
my all_.” And as she prayed, the visions of earthly bliss vanished from
before her, and she saw Jesus stretched upon the cross in dying agony,
and he seemed to say, “I bore _all this_ for thee.” And she thought of
the words of the Apostle—“He died for us.” And as she walked along, she
remembered what Jesus said—“_Blessed_ are ye when men shall hate you,
and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach
you, and shall cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.
Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy—for your reward is great in
Heaven.” “And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren or
sisters, or father or mother, or wife or children, or lands, for my
name’s sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit
everlasting life.”
So fully was her mind occupied with this delightful thought, that she
felt no further anxiety, and not the slightest fear. And as she was
lifted from the liquid grave, she could not help exclaiming in an
audible voice, “_Jesus, I thank thee!_” And then, as they turned toward
the shore, such a gleam of heavenly peace and holy joy illumined her
beautiful face, that several of the brethren and sisters who stood upon
the bank, simultaneously exclaimed, “Blessed be the name of the Lord!”
“Yes,” she exclaimed, “blessed be his holy name!” And suddenly she
stopped, and with a voice which was naturally sweet and powerful, and
had been carefully cultivated, and now was rendered deeper and more
expressive by intensity of feeling, she commenced singing:
“Jesus, I my cross have taken, All to leave and follow thee; Friendless,
poor, despised, forsaken, Thou from hence my all shall be. And whilst
thou shalt smile upon me, God of wisdom, love, and might, Foes may hate,
and friends disown me, Show thy face, and all is bright. Man may trouble
and distress me, ’Twill but drive me to thy breast; Life with trials
hard may press me, Heaven will bring me sweeter rest. Oh, ’tis not in
grief to harm me, While thy love is left to me! Oh, ’twere not in joy to
charm me, Were that joy unmixed with thee!”
The effect upon the audience was electrical. Tears streamed from every
face; many sobbed and wept aloud. Among these was a voice which
instantly fixed her attention. She looked up among the assembly, and was
surprised to see that it had increased since she started into the water
to a great multitude. The congregations from several other churches had
hurried to the river as soon as they were dismissed from their several
places of meeting. Foremost among the crowd stood Uncle Jones, with her
mother on one side, and Edwin on the other. It was she that she heard;
for when she saw her daughter standing thus alone, and heard her sing,
“Friendless, poor, despised, forsaken,” she lifted up her voice and
wept. Nor did she weep alone. Strong men, who were not professors of
religion, and who were thought to care for none of these things, stood
and gazed at that sweet face, all radiant with the love of Jesus, as
though it had been the face of an angel; and as they looked, the big
tears chased each other down their unconscious cheeks. The brethren and
sisters of the church wept; old men and mothers in Israel wept. Young
men and maidens wept. But Theodosia heard none, saw none but her mother.
As she came to the water’s edge, that mother rushed down to meet her,
and clasped her closely to her heart. The brothers and sisters of the
church, who were approaching to give her the hand of fellowship, stood
respectfully aside.
[Illustration: Theodosia embraces her mother, Mrs. Ernest, after being
immersed.]
“Oh, mother, do you—can you forgive me?”
“Don’t talk so, my child; I have never blamed you. You have done your
duty; you have done right. You have obeyed your Saviour—he will bless
you. I wish I had the courage to follow your example.”
“God bless you for those words, my mother! Oh! how full of joy my heart
is. He maketh my cup run over. Surely goodness and mercy hath followed
me all the days of my life. Uncle, dear uncle, it is _blessed to obey_.
Can’t you give up _all_ for Christ?
“Mr. Courtney, I thank you for your teachings. Now I _know_ I am
baptized. I have now done just what Jesus commanded. I have left all and
followed him; and, blessed be his name, I have already that peace which
passeth understanding.” And as the brethren and sisters came crowding
round to welcome her into the communion of the church on earth, she sang
again with that sweet, soul-thrilling voice, to which the intensity of
her feelings and utter self-abandonment gave tenfold power:
“Children of the living God, Take the stranger to your heart—Let me
dwell in your abode, Never more from you to part.
“Can you love me? Will you help me? Help me on my way to God—Can you
love me? Will you help me? Help me keep his precious word.”
While singing, she continued to give her hand to one after another as
they came up; and as she finished the strain, a sister standing by sang:
“Yes, come, thou blessed of the Lord, No stranger art thou now—We
welcome thee with warm accord, Our friend and sister thou.
“The hand of fellowship, the heart Of love we offer thee; Leaving the
world, thou dost but part With lies and vanity.
“In weal or woe, in joy or care, Thy portion shall be ours; Christians
their mutual burdens bear, They lend their mutual powers.”
The minister pronounced the benediction, and they led her up the bank,
and then each went his way rejoicing.
Uncle Jones went home and dined with Mrs. Ernest. When Theodosia had
changed her dress, and returned to the parlor, he went up and took her
hand as she came in, saying, “My dear Theo., why did you not tell me you
were going to be baptized to-day? I would have gladly gone with you to
your meeting.”
“Then you did not mean to cast me off?” said she, her eyes filling with
tears. “I thought you too had forsaken me. I sent you a line last night,
entreating you to be present—but you did not come!”
“I did not get it, nor did I know, till after church, that you intended
any such thing to-day. I missed you from your accustomed seat, and
inquired of your mother as soon as the meeting was dismissed, and
learned that you had gone to be baptized. We hurried to the river, and
fortunately were just in time to see you go into the water.”
“Oh, uncle! I am so glad. I thought that you, and mother, and all who
loved me, so disapproved of what I was about to do, that you would none
of you be present. God is already giving me back my friends.”
There was preaching again at three o’clock,—and as the school-house
could not hold half the people, it was thought best to adjourn to the
court house. At night the court house was filled to overflowing, and the
preacher requested those who were concerned about their souls’
salvation, and desired the prayers of the people of God, to take a seat
in front of the congregation. More than a dozen came forward at once,
among whom were several who had been a long time professors of religion,
and some were members of the Baptist Church. On inquiry, these
professors stated that they had been _trying to get to heaven_, and with
this object in view had endeavored to lead in some degree religious
lives. They had gone to church, partaken of the Supper, sometimes
prayed, or tried to pray—but took _no pleasure_ in religion; and from
what they heard in the morning, were convinced that whatever obedience
they had shown was the obedience of fear, or hope, and not of love. _For
if they could have got to heaven without religion, they would have
willingly dispensed with it._ They had abstained from open sin, because
they knew that those who lived in open sin would _surely be lost_. They
had endeavored to perform certain duties, because they considered the
attempt (at least) to do such duties to be _essential to salvation_.
What they did not think thus essential, had little weight upon their
conscience. Now they saw that they had been fearfully deceived, and
desired to seek for the obedience of love—not the obedience which seeks
to merit heaven, and continually looks for its reward—but that which
receives all mercies as the _free gift_ of God in Christ, and yet longs,
and strives, and prays to do all his commandments, because it thus and
only thus can exercise, exhibit, and gratify the _love of God that fills
the heart_.
The minister did not try to give them back their hopes, and make them
think that they had no occasion for alarm. He knew full well that Christ
will say to _many_, “Depart from me, I never knew you,” who here on
earth _called_ him Lord, Lord, and professed to be his disciples. He
greatly feared that there were thousands and thousands who had a
respectable standing in the church of Christ, who never asked, with the
converted Paul, “Lord, what wilt THOU _have me to do_?” But only with
the yet unconverted jailer, “What must I do to be saved?” This last he
knew was most important, but it was not _enough_. It was a needful and
common _preparation_ for religion, but it was not _religion_. It might
lead to _seek_ for faith, but it is not the _result_ of saving faith,
for _THAT works by LOVE_—and through Love purifies the heart—and through
Love brings forth good works in the life. He was convinced, moreover,
that it was infinitely better for many of God’s true children to suffer
temporary anxiety and alarm, than for one false professor to be
confirmed in his delusive hope.
It was determined at the close of this meeting, to appoint one for
Monday night, and probably continue to have preaching every night during
the week. Whether they did so, and what was the result, we will learn
hereafter. It is time for us now to return to our study, which at the
close of the Seventh Night (the attentive reader will perhaps remember)
was about the Scriptural authority, or rather about the utter want of
all Scriptural authority for infant baptism.
THE EIGHTH NIGHT’S STUDY.
New characters and new arguments.
Infant baptism is virtually forbidden in the Word of God.
The covenant of circumcision furnishes no ground of defence for infant
baptism.
Eighth Night’s Study.
The Reverend Mr. Johnson had, early in the preceding week, commenced the
preparation of a discourse, which was intended, at once and forever, to
put an end to any further defection among his flock. He was a fine
declaimer, and was, in the pulpit, accustomed at times to deal in the
bitterest denunciation of those who differed from his party in their
religious opinions and practices. He had more power of sarcasm than of
reason, and hence, found it easier to denounce the opinions of others
than to defend his own. His discourse upon the Sabbath through which we
have just passed, was that which we saw him preparing at the
commencement of our Third Night’s Study. It was designed to be a
scornful, bitter, and withering denunciation of all those weak minded
and credulous, or fanatical, persons who, in this day of light, and
surrounded by such advantages as were possessed by _his_ congregation,
could be by any means induced to wander away from the sacred pale of
Presbyterianism. We will not trouble the reader with even a synopsis of
this remarkable sermon. It had been prepared with evident labor and
care, and it was delivered with great energy and feeling. Under other
circumstances, it might have produced the effect that its author
intended, which was to deter any other persons from any investigation of
the subject of baptism, or indeed any other religious subject, except
for the purpose of confirming their faith in the doctrines in which they
had been instructed from their childhood. To have fully answered his
purpose, he should have preached it at least a week sooner. Now, it was
universally understood to be expressly aimed at certain individuals,
whom it was well known had been investigating the subject of baptism,
and _might_ possibly be considering the propriety, or rather the
conscientious _necessity_, of a change of church relationship. Many a
glance was turned, during its delivery, to the seats occupied by Uncle
Jones and Mrs. Ernest. The latter felt that it was an uncalled-for abuse
of her absent child, whom she knew had been impelled to the course she
had taken by the sternest and most distressing conviction of
indispensable duty; and though she wept as she listened, her tears were
tears of mortification and anger. That sermon did more to destroy her
faith in Pastor Johnson, and her affection for her church, than all the
anti-Presbyterian arguments she had ever heard. So also it did more to
fix the attention of the congregation upon the work which was going on
among the Baptists, than any thing which _they_ could have done or said.
Many were willing to go and learn at the Baptist meetings what those
terrible and seducing doctrines were which could so excite the ire of
their venerable shepherd.
After preaching, he gave notice that a meeting of the Session would be
held at three o’clock, at the parsonage, to attend to some business of
importance, and gave a special invitation to the _resident ministers_
(by whom he meant the President of the college, and those of the
professors who were also preachers) to meet with them.
Neither Uncle Jones nor Mrs. Ernest said any thing of this ominous
announcement to Theodosia, for both had some indistinct conception that
the business to be done related to her case.
Uncle Jones, as one of the ruling elders, and a member of the Session,
felt it his duty to be present. He was a little after the time, however;
and when he arrived, he found that they had already entered upon the
discussion of the business on hand. There was an awkward pause in the
conversation when he came in, until the pastor remarked that the matter
which they were considering might be an unpleasant one to him; and if
so, there would be a quorum present should he think best to retire.
“If your business relates in any way to my niece,” said the Professor,
“I prefer to witness all you have to say or do.”
“We were indeed speaking of her,” said the pastor; “and though it gives
me pain to say it, I have felt it my duty, also, to make some mention of
your own case, as of one aiding and abetting error in another, if not
yourself entertaining opinions which are inconsistent with your
obligations as a ruling elder in the church.”
There was a slight flush passed over the manly face of Professor Jones,
as the pastor, with evident reluctance, thus gave him to understand that
_one_ object of the meeting was to inflict the discipline of the church
upon his recreant niece, and another to take steps to depose him from
the eldership; but he answered very calmly:
“Don’t let my coming in interrupt your order of business. You will take
up one case at a time. I will be present when you take action on that of
Miss Ernest. When you are ready to consider mine, I will retire.”
“We understand,” said the pastor, “that Miss Ernest, while her name was
still standing as a member upon our record, has gone to a Baptist
society, solicited immersion, and has actually been immersed by a
Baptist preacher. By this act, she has undoubtedly severed all
connection with our church, and must of necessity be excluded from _our
communion_. The only question is whether we are bound to make the usual
citation to appear and answer to the charge.”
“There can be no doubt,” replied Professor Jones, “that we are bound,
according to our rules, to give the ten days’ notice of citation, with a
copy of the charges preferred against the accused. But, in this case, I
will take it upon myself to answer for my niece, that she would prefer
the quickest and the simplest mode of excision. She has no wish for
farther connection with us. She regards herself as already separated
from our communion, and will probably make no answer or defence to any
charges not affecting her moral or Christian character, which you may
think fit to bring against her.”
After some consultation, it was decided that it would not be proper to
dispense with any of the stipulated formalities of the rules of
discipline; and consequently, all that could at this time be done, was
to take order that a copy of the charges preferred against her, the
names of the witnesses by whom they were to be established, and a
citation to appear and answer ten days thereafter, should be issued and
served upon Miss Theodosia Ernest. A committee, consisting of the pastor
and clerk, was appointed to carry these measures into execution.
“You are now done with Miss Ernest’s case for the present,” said
Professor Jones, “and I will retire, that you may feel perfect freedom
in speaking about mine.”
“Oh, no,” said the President of the College, the Rev. T. J. McNought,
D.D., LL.D., who was present on the invitation of the pastor. “We were
merely speaking of what it _might_ be necessary to do in a case such as
our brother Johnson conceived yours would _eventually become_, should
you continue to progress in the direction in which he imagines you have
started.”
“Brethren,” replied the Professor, “let us not misunderstand each other.
You know me well. I am a plain, blunt man. I will have no concealment on
this subject. My niece has carefully studied the Word of God, which our
standards declare ‘IS THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.’ I assisted
her in the investigation. We both came to the conclusion, as I think
every right-minded man must do, that the baptism commanded and spoken of
in the New Testament, is neither sprinkling nor pouring, but dipping,
or, as it is commonly called, immersion. This I now firmly believe. This
I am ready to prove from the Holy Word to you or any one else who feels
inclined to inquire into the matter. I will prove it by the very meaning
of the _word_ baptize. I will prove it by a reference to the _places_
selected for baptism. By the going down into the water, and the coming
up out of the water, said to have preceded and followed baptism. I will
prove it by the nature of the _allusions_ to baptism, as a _bath_, as a
_planting_, and a burial. I will prove by the testimony of the Fathers,
that it was for centuries the _only_ baptism, and by the testimony of
_our own ablest writers_—such as Wall and Stuart, Neander and
Colman—that it continued to be the _common_ baptism for more than
thirteen hundred years, even in the Roman Catholic Church, and the
churches derived from her, and _still_ continues the only baptism in the
Eastern churches. I will show you the very time and place when and where
the change was made by authority of the _Pope and his council_. I will
show you when and how the new practice was introduced into England and
into this country. I will show you this, not in Baptist books. These
facts do not rest on Baptist testimony, but on that of _our own_
historians and divines. _You know_, President McNought, that what I say
is true; and Mr. Johnson knows it, too, or might know it, if he would
look at the evidence in his possession. Now, if to believe these things
on such testimony makes one a heretic, I wish you distinctly to
understand that I am decidedly heretical. Though I assure you, on my
honor as a man and a Christian, that I am ready and willing to see and
to acknowledge my error, if _any one of you_ can point it out. On the
subject of infant baptism, I am not fully convinced. I am satisfied, as
any one can easily be who will make a critical examination of the
Scriptures, with this object in view, that _there is neither express
commandment nor example to justify the baptism of any but believers, to
be found in the Word of God_. Pastor Johnson and myself have together
searched diligently to find either the precept or the example, and he,
as well as I, was compelled to grant that it _is not there_. But Woods
and Stuart, and others of our most eminent divines, while they have
granted this, still contend for infant baptism. There must, therefore,
be _some other Scriptural ground_ on which it rests. I will be thankful
to any one among you who can point it out.”
There was a moment’s pause. The Session were not prepared for such a
confession of his faith and no one knew what to reply.
“I will now retire,” continued he. “You have the case before you, and
can adopt such measures as you may think best.”
After he had gone, “I told you,” said the pastor, “that he had become a
Baptist in all but the name. I don’t believe his niece would ever have
left us, but for his encouragement and that of her mother.”
“They must have felt,” said Colonel White (the lay member whom we have
had occasion to mention once before), “they must have felt to-day, if
they had any feeling left. I would not have been in their places for the
best farm in the country. It made my very ears tingle to hear how you
belabored them. But it don’t seem to have done him the slightest good. I
doubt if there is but one argument that can be brought to bear upon him,
and that is the same that so easily convinced my young friend, Esquire
Percy.”
“What is that?” inquired President McNought.
“It is the _argumentum ad pocketum_. I have heard from doctors that the
pocket nerve was the most sensitive nerve in the whole body. Convince a
man that his bread and meat depend upon a correct belief, and he is very
apt to believe correctly. This may not be always true of a _woman_, but
I have never known this argument, when prudently and skillfully
presented, to fail of convincing _a man_. You may appoint a committee to
confer with brother Jones, and endeavor to convince him of his errors.
It is, perhaps, essential that you should; for this will give him a
pleasant and honorable opportunity of recalling his heretical
expressions, or at least, of explaining them away. But before you do
this, let me intimate to him that the Board of Trustees (of whom you
know I have the honor to be the President) will greatly dislike to
dispense with his _valuable_ services in the college—but that it is a
Presbyterian college; and however much they may esteem him as a man, and
value him as a teacher, yet we can retain no one whose orthodoxy is
openly doubtful. Believe me, brethren, you will then find him much more
pliable, and ready to be convinced that he is wrong.”
“You may try it,” said the pastor, “but I don’t believe you will
succeed. I know him better than you do. He has always been one of the
most _conscientious_ men I ever knew. He will _act_ as he _believes_.”
“No doubt of it,” rejoined the speculating elder. “He will act as he
believes; but he will believe that it is _wrong_ to make any change in
his church relations, or to meddle any farther with the subject of
baptism, unless it is in the defence of our opinions. Professor Jones is
a poor man. It is not generally known, but it is true, that he has for
several years greatly assisted in the support of Mrs. Ernest and her
children. He has thus lived fully up to his income. He has now a growing
family. He expects to provide for them out of his yearly salary. It is
all he can do. Take away this; turn him out of the house he now
occupies, rent free; let him feel that he stands suddenly not only
destitute, but without employment and friendship—and he is something
more or less than man, if he can look upon his helpless wife and
children and refuse to hear to reason.”.
The Session appointed the pastor and the Rev. T. J. McNought, D.D.,
LL.D., as a committee to see and labor with their brother Jones, and
endeavor to convince him of his errors, especially in regard to infant
baptism, as on this point he seemed likely to be most accessible, and
then adjourned to meet again at the call of the pastor.
Colonel White considered himself a committee of one to make matters easy
for the committee of two. Early in the day, on Monday, he called at the
house of Professor Jones, at an hour when he knew he was absent, for he
felt the necessity of all the assistance he could obtain, and relied
upon Mrs. Jones and the children as his most efficient allies.
“Is the Professor in this morning, Mrs. Jones?”
“Not just now, sir. He has a recitation at this time. He will be in in
half an hour. Take a seat, colonel.”
“No, I thank you, madam. I called to see Professor Jones about some
important business. I will meet him at the college. There is a matter
afloat, which I fear is going greatly to injure him in his future
prospects, and I merely called, as a friend, to suggest some plan by
which the ruin—for ruin I fear it will be—may be averted.”
“Why, Colonel White, what _can_ you mean?” asked the lady, in just that
tone of distress and alarm which he desired to hear.
“Oh,” said he, taking a chair, and sitting down where he could look
right into her face, “it may be nothing after all. Indeed, I don’t
really believe it will amount to any thing; but still, there is, I
_fear_, some danger that he will lose his situation in the college.
There is a rumor abroad, you know, that he is about to become a
Baptist—or, at least, that he has a little tendency that way; and there
are _some_ of the trustees who are disposed to be _very particular_
about such things—too much so, as I may say. Now, for myself, I am
disposed to be liberal; and I shall do what I can—in fact, I may say I
have done what I could—to influence their action. You know I have always
been in favor of Professor Jones. I know him to be a worthy man, and a
very superior instructor; and I know he has the confidence—the implicit
confidence, as I may say—of the whole community. And what if he _does_
entertain some heterodox opinions about a matter not essential to
salvation? says I. Why, he is a good man, and that is enough for me. But
you know, Mrs. Jones, people don’t all think alike; and I am dubious
about what the trustees may take a fancy to do. But I can’t stay,”
continued he, rising, and going toward the door. “I could not do less,
as a neighbor, than just to call and tell you my fears. I will try to
meet Professor Jones himself, and consult with him about what is to be
done.”
He sallied out, and about the time that Professor Jones was starting for
home, placed himself in the way as he came from the college building.
“I am sorry,” said he, “brother Jones, that our pastor used such
expressions as he did yesterday. I don’t wonder that you became excited;
I could not have borne it half as well as you did. But I am afraid you
dropped some expressions that will injure you with the trustees. Some of
them have been talking with me this morning. They say that you as good
as declared yourself a Baptist, and they don’t see what further use a
Presbyterian college has for your services. But I said, wait a while.
Jones is a man of impulse. His feelings were touched yesterday, and he
said more than he intended. He is as much a Presbyterian as I am. He
will be all right in a week. I took the liberty to say thus much for
you. I have always been your friend, and I mean to stand by you through
thick and thin, so long as I can be of any service to you. I don’t
advise you to conceal or falsify your opinions. I know you are incapable
of doing _that_; but I merely suggest, since so much depends upon
it—your own living, as I may say—that you will be a little more careful
and prudent in your expression. Think what you please; but you are not
obliged always to _tell_ all you think. You understand? I felt bound to
give you this little hint. There may be more in it than you are aware
of.”
Such thoughts as these had already intruded into the Professor’s mind.
His wife had several times suggested something of the kind. Till now,
however, the danger had seemed distant and undefined. It was indeed a
dark cloud, but it hung low on the far-off horizon; now, it lowered
above his very head, and covered all the heavens with its blackness.
Nothing but utter ruin stared him in the face. He walked along home,
almost blinded by the rush of fearful thoughts. He sat down in silence
to his dinner. His wife seemed even sadder and more distressed than he
was. Scarcely had he begun to eat, when she inquired:
“Have you seen Colonel White this morning? he was here looking for you.
I _told_ you how it would be, when you first begun to meddle with this
subject of baptism; but you could not be satisfied. And we are now to
lose our pleasant home and all our means of support, and be turned out
destitute upon the world, just because you would not listen to your
wife, and let well enough alone.”
“Oh, not so bad as that I hope, my dear.”
“Well, I don’t know how any thing could be worse. Colonel White says the
trustees are going to declare your professorship vacant, or something
like it, because you have turned Baptist. And of course we must leave
this house, which you know belongs to the college, though we have fitted
it up for ourselves just as though it belonged to us. And you know you
have never saved a dollar of your salary, though I am sure I never spent
the half of it. I never could tell what became of it; and how we are
going to live, I should like very much to know. If you depend on those
ignorant and stingy _Baptists_ for a support, any body can see we must
come to starvation. They could not do much if they would, and they would
not do any thing if they could. I’m sure I hate the day they came here,
to disturb the peace and quiet of our town. They have brought nothing
but trouble to me.”
“But, my dear wife, things may not turn out so badly after all. I did
indeed see Colonel White, and he told me, as a friend, that some of the
trustees are a little piqued at my entertaining opinions on this subject
different from their own; but with his influence exerted in my favor, I
hardly think I shall lose my situation, at least till I can make other
arrangements.”
“His influence! Why, he is the very soul and body of the whole business.
You don’t know that man as I do. He can’t impose on me with his soft
words. I could see the evil intention in his eye while he was talking
about it to me. As soon as he saw how much it distressed me, I could see
it did his very heart good. He is the very man that is working your
ruin. And all I wish is that you had not yourself placed in his hand the
club to beat your brains out with. If I were you, I would go to the
trustees myself, and set the matter right.”
“What can I say to them, my dear?”
“Say? Why tell them, that though it is true that you have given a little
time to the investigation of this subject, you are as good a
Presbyterian as any of them, and have no more thought of leaving the
Presbyterian Church than President McNought himself. I know you _love
our church_. I have often heard you say so. It was good enough for your
father and mother to live in and die in. It was good enough for Timothy
Dwight and Jonathan Edwards to live and die in. It is good enough for
Pastor Johnson, President McNought, your brother professors, and all the
most intelligent, and influential, and wealthy portion of the town, and
_I can’t see why it is not good enough for you_.”
“If I were only sure it is the Church of Jesus Christ, that would be all
I could ask,” he replied; “but I must consider further of this matter.”
“Yes, I see how it will be; you will consider and consider till the
mischief is done and we are turned out of house and home. But I know
it’s of no use to talk to you. You will just go on your own way. I only
wish you may never be as sorry as I am that you ever saw a Baptist.”
Night came, and with it came the committee appointed by the Session—the
reverend pastor and the reverend doctor. They had previously consulted
and arranged their plan of argument. Mr. Johnson knew it would not be
worth while to go again over the same ground through which they had
already traveled. They had in vain _searched the Scriptures_ to find a
single precept or example to justify the baptism of infants. They
concluded, therefore, they must make it out by _inference_.
“I understand,” said President McNought, “that you insist on some
_express precept_ or _example_ for infant baptism, before you will
receive it as a scriptural practice?”
“Oh, no,” said Professor Jones; “I am by no means particular about the
_character_ of the proof. I only ask for Scripture evidence that it was
either required or practiced. You may find that evidence in any form you
can. You can’t find the _precept_ or _example_, that is certain. We have
tried it. If you have any _other_ testimony, let us hear it.”
“The truth is,” said the D.D., “there was no necessity for the precept
or example. The case was so plain, that the early disciples could not
help understanding their duty, so there was no _need_ of commanding it.
“Children had _always_ made a part of the _Jewish_ Church, and unless
there was something said to the contrary, they would of course be
regarded as making a part of the _Christian_ church. If, therefore, you
cannot prove that they _were absolutely excluded_ from the Christian
church, it is most conclusively evident that they were received into it,
though there should be no record of the fact.”
“To that,” said the Professor, “I might reply by saying that the baptism
of infants, if required at all, is a positive institution of our
religion, something _essentially binding_ upon the Christian churches.
And it is difficult for me to conceive how you can make out a _positive
obligation to perform a certain Christian duty in a church capacity_,
from the mere fact that _not one word is said about it_. Your argument
amounts to this. The Jews _circumcised_ their male infants at eight days
old, because God had again and again positively and plainly _commanded_
them to do so; therefore Christians should _baptize_ all their infant
children, both male and female, _because_ the Lord has given _no
commandment on the subject_, and further, because we cannot find the
slightest allusion to any of the first Christians as having done or
refused to do it, nor any intimation that any person was ever expected
to do it. Such logic may be very conclusive to you, but I can never be
convinced by it.
“But I think I may safely venture to take the very ground proposed by
you, and prove that _infants_ (according to your own language) _were
absolutely excluded_, both by the commandments of the Saviour and the
example of the early Christians. While looking in vain for any precept
or example to justify the baptism of infants, we found enough both of
precept and example to satisfy my mind, since I have come to reflect
about it, that _infant baptism_ is absolutely and clearly forbidden.
“It is forbidden in the commission itself. The command to baptize
_believers_ is a command _not to baptize_ any but believers. The command
to make disciples _first_ and then baptize them, is a command _not to
baptize_ any who are not first made disciples. If I tell my servant to
go and wash all the old sheep in my flock, it is equivalent to a
prohibition to wash the little lambs. If I tell him to cut down all the
_dead_ trees in a grove, it is equivalent to a prohibition to cut any
green and living ones—and if he should disobey me and cut the green ones
also, I would not consider it a valid excuse, that I had _last year_, on
_another plantation_, expressly ordered him to _girdle_ both green and
dry. So the command to baptize _believers_ excludes all others; and as
infants cannot believe, it excludes them from the very necessity of the
case. Nor would I like to offer, for the violation of this command, such
an excuse as this: Oh, Lord, I know that thou didst ordain _only_ the
baptism of _disciples_ and _believers_—but as thou didst, under a
_former_ dispensation, expressly command children to be _circumcised_, I
thought thou wouldst prefer to have them baptized under this, although
thou didst omit to tell us so. Would he not reply, What right had you to
make ordinances for me? If I commanded the _Jews to circumcise their
children_, it was their duty to do it; and when I command _Christians_
to baptize _believers_ and _disciples_, it is their duty to do _that_.
‘Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you.’ ‘But in vain do
you worship me, teaching for doctrines the _commandments of men_.’
“And as a prohibition may be fairly inferred from the _command_, so it
may also from the _examples_. Among all the multitudes who came to John
and were baptized of him in Jordan, there was _not a single infant_.
John required repentance and faith in the coming Messiah as an
indispensable prerequisite. He taught them that the _Father’s_ faith
would not avail in this new dispensation. ‘Think not to say unto
yourselves, we have Abraham for our father; but bring forth for
yourselves fruits suitable to repentance.’
“Those who were baptized by Jesus and his disciples, were also adult
believers, for the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more
disciples than John. He _made disciples_ before he baptized them. Of the
three thousand mentioned as added to the church upon the day of
Pentecost, there was _not one infant_, nor did they bring an infant with
them. Of the five thousand, a few days after, there was not one who was
not an adult believer. They were men and women. Of the great multitude
who believed and were baptized in Samaria when Philip preached, there
was not a single little child. The Evangelist expressly classes them all
under two heads, ‘both men and women.’ And nowhere, in a single case, is
there even an intimation that there was a child baptized, nor is any one
ever reproved for the neglect to have it done. Now if _this_ does not
absolutely exclude them by example, I do not see what force there is in
example. I reply to your argument, therefore, first, by proving that
even if infants had _not_ been _expressly excluded_, there would not be
the slightest warrant for their baptism; and, second, by showing that
they _were_ absolutely excluded, both by Christ’s command and the
practice of the early Christians.”
“Then,” said Mr. Johnson, “you are unwilling to believe that ‘baptism
has come in the room of circumcision,’ as I have been accustomed to
inform my people every time an infant has been baptized in my church for
twenty years.”
“Oh, no, Mr. Johnson—not at all. I am very willing to believe it—I may
almost say, I am very desirous to believe it. All I ask is that you will
give the _slightest Scripture proof_ of it. You are too good a
Protestant to ask me to take _your word_ for it, or even the often
repeated _assertions_ of all the clergy in the land. Give me _one text
of Scripture_ to prove it, and I am as ready and willing to believe as
even yourself can wish.”
“You know,” replied Mr. Johnson, “that we teach that baptism is
instituted by Christ—that it is a seal of the righteousness of faith,
and that the seed of the faithful have no less a right to this ordinance
under the Gospel than the seed of Abraham to circumcision under the Old
Testament.”
“Oh, yes—I know _you teach_ this. I have heard and read it a hundred
times: and I have no doubt most of our people think you have Scripture
to show for it. It is not enough, however, for me to know that _you_
teach it; I want that you should show me where the _Lord Jesus_ teaches
it, or where he authorizes _you_ to teach it. Where is it _said_ or even
_intimated_ ‘that the seed of the faithful have no less a right to this
ordinance under the Gospel than the seed of Abraham to circumcision
under the Old Testament?’ If it is in the Bible, you can show it. If I
read correctly, the seed of Abraham had a right, or rather were in duty
bound to circumcise their male children at eight days old, _because God
expressly commanded it_—to give the children of believers the _same
right_ to baptism would therefore require an _express commandment_ that
they should be baptized. But you know full well there _is no such_
command. I have heard a great deal of, to me, unintelligible jargon
about ‘federal holiness,’ and ‘covenant holiness,’ and the ‘covenant of
circumcision,’ and the ‘Abrahamic covenant,’ etc., etc. There may be a
great deal of sense and Scripture in it, but I can’t understand it. I
want a plain Scriptural statement of the facts. You say that baptism
came in the room of circumcision. Show me where the Word says so. Show
me any thing like it.”
“If you will take the Confession of Faith,” replied the Doctor of
Divinity, “and turn to the 147th page, you will see the texts upon which
this doctrine rests.”
“Well, here is a copy. Let us find them. This is coming to the point. If
any text is mentioned or referred to which gives to the _infant
children_ of believers the same claim to baptism that the descendants of
Abraham had to circumcision, or even intimates that baptism has come in
the room of circumcision, I am satisfied. This is all I want.”
The book was handed to the pastor, who found the page, 147, and read as
follows: “Gen. xvii. 7, 9, with Gal. iii. 9—‘And I will establish my
covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their
generations, for an everlasting covenant; to be a God unto thee, and to
thy seed after thee. And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my
covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, in their
generations.’”
“Stop a minute,” said the Professor. “Let me turn to the place in the
Bible. We will understand it better to read it in its connection. Here
it is, Gen. xvii. 7–9. Why did they leave out the 8th verse—‘And I
will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou
art a stranger; all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession;
and I will be their God’? This makes it all very plain. God agreed with
Abraham that he would _give_ his seed the land of Canaan for a
possession forever; and as a condition, on the other part, he required
(see 10th verse) that every man child should be circumcised. I can
understand all that; but what has it to do with baptism or Christianity?
No more than the carrying of the bones of Joseph out of Egypt.”
“Oh, yes it has, Professor Jones, for we read in Gal. iii. 9—”
“Stop a minute, till I find the place. Now—but let me read it; I will
begin at the 6th verse: ‘Even as Abraham _believed_ God, and it was
counted unto him for righteousness. Know ye, therefore, that they _which
are of faith_, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture,
foreseeing that God would justify the heathen _through faith_, preached
before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be
blessed.’ And now comes your proof-text—‘So then they which be of
_faith_, are blessed with faithful [believing] Abraham.’ Now, I think I
can understand this; but for the life of me I can’t see one word about
baptism in it, or of circumcision either. There is no more allusion to
either, than there is to the lifting up of the brazen serpent in the
wilderness, or the giving of the law on Sinai, or the falling down of
the walls of Jericho. Abraham _believed_ God. So Christians _believe_.
Abraham was _blessed_ for his _faith_. It was counted to him for
righteousness. So _we_, who believe, are also blessed with believing
Abraham; and that is all. There is surely no infant baptism here. What
is the next?”
“It is Romans iv. 11, 12: ‘And he received the sign of circumcision, a
seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being
uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe,
though they be not circumcised,’ etc.”
“I have it here,” said the Professor, as he found the chapter; “and to
understand the sense, I see it will be necessary to begin at the first
of the chapter. Paul is proving that justification is by _faith_, and
not by _works_. So he says even Abraham _believed_ (third verse), and it
was counted [or reckoned] unto him for righteousness; and in the tenth
verse, he asks, how was it reckoned? _before_ he was circumcised or
after? It was before. He had the faith, and he received the sign of
circumcision as a seal of the _righteousness_ of faith. And the Apostle
goes on to argue, that if faith was counted to _him_ for righteousness,
while he was yet uncircumcised, so it will be counted for righteousness
to all who believe in Christ, even though _they_ should not be
circumcised. But what has all this to do with baptism? The subject is
never mentioned or alluded to. The sentiment is the same which is
expressed in Galatians—Abraham believed, and believing, he was blessed.
So Christians, believing as he did, will like him be blessed; and thus
all believers may be counted as _his children in faith_. The only
allusion to circumcision here, is made to show that _it_ had nothing at
all to do with the blessedness of faith. To baptism there is no allusion
at all. If you will satisfy me that baptism has come in the room of
circumcision, so that the law of circumcision was transferred to
baptism, you must give me something better than this; and if there were
any thing better, the Confession of Faith would have quoted or referred
to it. I take it for granted, therefore, that these are the strongest
proof-texts you can present. And if they prove any thing at all, that
has any bearing whatever upon the point at issue, it is that _all_ the
members of a Christian church must of necessity be professed
_believers_. The seed of Abraham enjoyed certain blessings (the
possession of Canaan) in virtue of circumcision, but the _righteousness
of faith_ pertained to Abraham, as he was _un_circumcised, and now
belongs to those who are his children, not by circumcision, or by any
thing that came in the room of it, but by the same faith which he
exercised. Those who _believe_, and _only_ those, are to be partakers of
the blessing. Christianity is a _personal_, individual, and not a
_hereditary_ religion. In the New Dispensation, _every_ man stands on
_his own_ foundation, and is responsible for _himself_ to God.”
“I do not see,” replied the President, “why you should think it
necessary to have any Scripture to prove a familiar and notorious
_fact_. It is well known that circumcision was the _initiatory_
ordinance of the Jewish Church, and we all agree that baptism is the
initiatory ordinance into the Christian church. Of course, then, it
takes the place of the other. It bears the same relation to the
Christian, that the other did to the Jewish Church. _It is the door of
entrance._ Now, the church of God is, and has been in every age,
substantially _the same_, although existing under different names; and
consequently, the character of the persons admitted to membership must
have been the same. These persons among the Jews were admitted by
circumcision, and among Christians by baptism. They were the infant
children of church members among them; and so, of course, they must be
among us. We don’t need any express _text_ to prove this, for it is
self-evident from the general tenor of the whole Word.”
“Your argument,” replied Professor Jones, “is simply this: Infants were
members of the Jewish Church; and, as the church of God is always
substantially the same, they must be members of the Christian church.
The _door_ of entrance is changed, but there is no change in the
character of the persons who are to enter it.”
“Yes, that is precisely what I mean, Whatever other changes were made,
there was _no change in the membership_.”
“Then,” said the Professor, “you mean precisely what is certainly not
true. Jesus Christ, when he commanded the _new_ door to be opened,
commanded also that different persons should _enter_ it. To the Jews he
said, bring in your male children and servants at eight days old. To
Christians he says, bring all who _believe_ in the blessed Gospel which
I send you to preach. If he made the one change, he just as clearly made
the other. Believers—as Mr. Johnson and I have seen in our examination
of the word—he plainly commands to be baptized; but he commands _no
others_, and no others ever were baptized in all the history which the
New Testament records. Neither is it true that Christianity is
_substantially the same_ as Judaism. It was one of the most earnest
labors of Paul to explain and enforce the difference. This difference
was substantial—it was fundamental—it was constitutional. The other was
a religion of _works_; this is one of faith. That was one of outward
forms; this of inward affections. That consisted of the whole Jewish
nation, both the evil and good; this is confined to the truly converted.
That was a national establishment, and this an assembly of true
believers, from which all are to be excluded but the pious in heart and
the holy in life. This substantial and fundamental change, we, as
Presbyterians, recognize in fact, though we deny it in theory. We _say_
that infants are church members, but we do not, in this: country,
_treat_ them as such; we do not _address_ them as such; we do not, in
fact, consider them as such. You, in your preaching, are continually
urging the baptized children who have come to years of discretion, ‘to
come out from _the world_;’ and when they are converted, you urge them
_to join the church_. It is true that, by the Confession of Faith (p.
504), you are required to inform them ‘that it is their duty and their
privilege to come to the Lord’s Supper,’ whether they give evidence of
conversion or not, provided only that they are intelligent and moral.
But you _never do it_; and half our members would not believe that we
have any such rule. In other countries, however, this is done. Our
theory is carried out into practice, and the church is filled with
unconverted men and women. This is the legitimate result of infant
church-membership.”
“I am very sorry,” rejoined the pastor, “to hear you talk in this way. I
fear you are preparing great trouble for us, and are about to bring down
terrible sorrow upon your own head and that of your family. I had hoped,
for the honor of our beloved church, that you would have thought better
of these things. We have, however, done our duty. The Session deputed us
to reason the case with you, and endeavor to convince you of your
errors; but we find that you _will not be convinced_. Let us hope,
however, that you will consider further, and carefully weigh the
unanswerable arguments which we have presented, and let them have their
full influence upon your mind. There may be more dependent on it than
you are aware of. I suppose it is not worth while to spend more time
upon the subject; so we will bid you good-night.”
Professor Jones understood very well the ominous import of this parting
address. He knew that his home, his employment, his all, depended on the
will of a few men, some of whom would take pleasure in rendering his
condition as wretched as possible, so soon as they had no further hope
of binding him to themselves. And he knew, on the other hand, that those
to whom he would go, had neither influence to aid him, or profitable
employment to furnish him the means of support. As soon as the reverend
committee had retired, he fell upon his knees, and offered up to God his
thanks, that thus far he had not been tempted to deny his truth, or
falsify the solemn convictions of his conscience. And then, in view of
what he now began to feel would be inevitable, he prayed for strength to
obey all the Master’s will, and trust God for the consequences:
“Oh, my God! I see before me nothing but trouble and sorrow. Want and
affliction stare me in the face. Lord, give me strength to welcome them,
or at least, firmly to endure them. Thou canst bring good out of evil. I
commit my destiny into thy hands. I have trusted my _immortal soul_ to
thee; why may I not trust my body and my family? Thou hast promised to
save the one and to provide for the others. Help my unbelief! I must go
out like Abraham, not knowing whither I go. I look to thee, my Father in
heaven, to open the way before me.”
As he was rising from his knees, the remark of Theodosia, as she came
from the water with her face so full of heavenly joy, came back to his
mind with tenfold force and beauty—“Uncle, dear uncle! it is _blessed to
obey_! Can’t you give up _all_ for Christ?”
“Yes, yes,” he unconsciously exclaimed, “I will—I do give up all. I will
follow where duty leads, let the consequence be what it may. I will
resign my professorship to-morrow. God will provide in some way for my
wife and children.”
The conversation which we have recorded took place in his private study.
On returning to his family room, he was delighted to find there his
sister, Mrs. Ernest, and her daughter, and also, Mr. Courtney, who had
called to have a little conversation with Theodosia, and finding they
were about to start out, had accompanied them on their visit.
Mrs. Jones had been so anxious about the result of the conference with
the committee, that she could not enjoy the society of her visitors, nor
even exert herself successfully for their entertainment. She was,
therefore, greatly relieved when her husband came in and took that task
upon himself.
“I wish I had known that you and Theo. were here,” said he, “I would
have turned the reverend committee who have just left me over to you.”
“I do not understand what you mean,” said Mr. Courtney.
“Only this. My brethren in the Church Session have learned that I do not
any longer believe that sprinkling is baptism, or that any but believers
are to be baptized. And they have deputized Dr. McNought and Pastor
Johnson to endeavor to bring me back into a belief of their human
traditions. Their main argument at this time was on the baptism of
infants as founded on the usage of the Jews. Baptism, they said, has
come in the room of circumcision; and as infants were circumcised, so
infants must be baptized. What answer would you have made?”
“I would have said: Gentlemen, you do not _yourselves believe_ that
baptism came in the room of circumcision in any such sense that the same
order of persons who were circumcised are to be baptized; or, if you
_believe_ it, you do not act _out_ your faith. The law of circumcision
included only males, but you baptize both males and females. The child,
when it was _possible_, was to be circumcised at eight days old, but you
baptize at any other time. The servants and the slaves, whether old or
young, whether born in their house or bought with their money, were to
be circumcised, but you never baptize them—but only the children. They
were to be circumcised by the parents and not by the priest; but you
require baptism to be done by the minister. If the law of circumcision
is transferred to baptism in _one_ particular (without any New Testament
authority) it is equally transferred in all the others.
“Then I would have said further: Baptism _could_ not come in the room of
circumcision, because _circumcision is still in force_. No room was ever
made for the second by taking away the first. The truth is simply this:
God made a covenant or agreement with Abraham, when he was ninety-nine
years old, in which he promised to his seed the land of Canaan. The
token or memento of this contract was the circumcision of every male.
This was the condition of their entering Canaan. This is now the
condition of their restoration to it. The promise still stands. The Jews
are still a separate people. This is their _mark_. By this they are yet
to claim their inheritance. This is its object, and this the sum of its
value. The covenant has not been revoked. It is still in force and its
seal or token still remains.
“God made with Abraham _another_ covenant some twenty-four years
earlier, in which he promised him, among other things, ‘That in his seed
should all the nations of the earth be blessed.’—Gen. xii. 3. This is
what Paul refers to when he says, Gal. iii. 8—‘The Gospel was preached
unto Abraham, and Abraham believed it.’ He trusted in the Christ to
come, and so was, in a certain sense, a member of Christ’s church. So
was Noah—so was Enoch—so were all who like Abraham believed God, and it
was counted unto them for righteousness. They were not introduced into
it by _circumcision_—nor was Abraham himself—for it was twenty-four
years after he heard and believed the Gospel, before he was circumcised.
He was a member of Christ’s mystical body, and an heir of the _heavenly_
Canaan, without the seal of circumcision. By _it_ he and his seed became
the heirs of the _earthly_ Canaan. This was its object, and no more. The
blessings of the Gospel are to us, as to him, the result of _personal
faith_. Thus, they who are of faith, are blessed with [believing]
faithful Abraham; and thus far, and no further, this first-made covenant
with Abraham extends to us. If we believe as he believed, we shall be
blessed as he was blessed. This is all that any one can make out of all
that is said of the relationship of the Patriarch and believers.
“I should have said to them further: Gentlemen, _you_ call the Jewish
_nation_ the church of God, and tell us that the Christian church is the
same under a different dispensation. But Christ calls that nation _the
world_, in opposition to his church. The disciples to whom Christ spake,
John xv. 19, were men in good and regular standing in the Jewish nation,
which you call the church. Yet Christ says, I have chosen you _out of
the world_—and therefore the world, that is, the Jewish nation, hateth
you. Paul was not only a member, but an _eminent_ member of this Jewish
body; but he says that _he was a persecutor of the CHURCH OF GOD_.
Nicodemus was a ‘master in Israel;’ but Christ told him he could not
come into _his church_ till he had been born again. The Jews needed
conversion as much as any, before they could make any portion of the
_church_ of God. This church God set up for the _first_ time when John
began to preach. For the first time he organized a visible assembly of
penitent, believing, holy persons. There were good men, pious, devoted
men and women, among the Jews; but they were not gathered into _a
church_. The Jewish nation had some religious privileges; but it was not
in the Gospel sense _a church_. And when Christ established his church,
he made the terms of membership such as were intended to preserve its
purity and separation from all national politics. People were not to be
born into it, but to enter it by _faith and baptism_. ‘He that believeth
and is baptized.’ But by the introduction of infant baptism, the object
of this arrangement is entirely defeated.”
“I have often thought,” said Theodosia, “since my attention has been
directed to the subject, what disastrous consequences must follow if the
theory of Pedobaptism were fully carried out, and infants actually
recognized and treated as members of the visible church.”
“If you would fully realize what the consequences would be, you have
only to go to those States of Europe where this is actually done. You
will see men who blaspheme their Maker on the way to church, go and
partake of the Holy Supper. You will see them leave the church where
they have so partaken, and openly resort to the ball room, the horse
race, the drinking saloon, the gambling house, the cock pit, and even to
the very lowest and vilest haunts of dissipation. They are members of
the church. They were made such at eight days old. When they could say
the catechism they were confirmed, and informed, according to the
directions of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, that ‘it is their
duty and their privilege to come to the Lord’s table.’ To be baptized in
infancy and confirmed in childhood, are all that is needful to church
membership. That _faith_ required by the Gospel, they laugh at. They
call those who profess to know any thing about it in their own
experience, deluded enthusiasts. They know no more of religion than its
external ceremonies. They have the form of godliness, but deny the
power. Such was the Presbyterian Church to which Dr. Carson preached in
the North of Ireland. ‘In the general disregard of religion,’ says his
biographer, ‘the people of his charge were not behind their neighbors.
Horse races, cock fights, and other forms of sinful diversion were
frequent, and were numerously attended even by professing Christians.
The soul of this pious servant of God was deeply grieved. He knew well
the heaven-born excellence of Christianity, and clearly understood what
should be the fruits of the Spirit, but he beheld around him only the
works of the devil. He rode into the throng that crowded the
race-course, and saw there the members of his own church flying in every
direction to escape his sight.’ … ‘His church was composed of worldly
people, whom neither force nor persuasion could bring into subjection to
the Laws of Christ.’ In Germany and some other European States, _every
body_ is in the church. Every body is recognized as a church member.
Thieves, gamblers, drunkards, and prostitutes are members of the church.
There is no such thing as the world. The church has swallowed it up. It
has taken all the infidelity, all the atheism, all the blasphemy, all
the vice, and all the depravity of the world into its own bosom. This is
the natural and necessary result of receiving all the _infants_ as
church members. The church has ceased to be the body of Christ, and has
become a loathsome mass of hypocrisy and vice. There may be in it some
few good and pious believers in Jesus. There are in it many upright, and
honorable, and moral citizens: but these, as _church members_, are not
at all to be distinguished from the basest profligates that issue forth
from the recking stews of infamy. They have all alike been baptized in
infancy and confirmed in childhood, without _any profession of
conversion to God_—most of them denying the necessity of any such
change, and all sit down alike to the same table of the Lord.”
“Surely, Mr. Courtney, you do not mean to speak thus of the _Protestant_
churches of Europe! I know it is true in regard to the Catholics; but
since the Reformation, it cannot be true of any others.”
“Yes, Mrs. Jones, I mean to say this of the Protestant churches,
wherever they have become _national_ churches, and by the process of
infant baptism have absorbed the whole population. It is _necessarily_
true of _any_ church which receives its members in this way. It would be
true in _this_ country, if you Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians, and
Lutherans, and Methodists could by any means accomplish what you all so
earnestly are laboring to attain—viz.: to induce _all the people_ to
have their children baptized.”
“Oh, no, Mr. Courtney. You must have conceived a terribly mistaken idea
of what we are all aiming at. We desire, I trust, as much as the
Baptists themselves, to keep our churches _pure_, and are as strict in
our terms of membership and as rigid in our discipline as _you_ are. We
want our churches to consist, as they now do, of godly people, and would
not for a day permit such as you have mentioned to remain in our
communion.”
“I know it, Mrs. Jones; but in order to do this you are obliged
continually to repudiate your own acts, and deny in practice what you
teach in theory. I was speaking of what the result must be, provided you
could induce all the people to have their infants baptized, and should
then recognize these baptized ones as church members _in fact_, as you
do in _theory_.
“Listen one minute, and I will satisfy you that what I say is strictly
true. You teach that, as circumcision was the door of entrance into the
Jewish Church, so baptism is the door of entrance into the church of
Christ. If so, all who are baptized are church members. Now, _you
Presbyterians_ say all the children of _believing parents_ must be
baptized. In your churches you baptize all the children of those parents
who have been baptized. The Episcopalians baptize _any_ child for whom
proper sponsors will stand. The Methodists will baptize _all_ the
children, with or without believing parents. Now, if you could succeed
(as by sermons, books, tracts, and newspapers you are all striving to
do) in convincing all the people that you are right, and prevail upon
them to bring _all_ their children, and have them thus initiated into
the church of Christ—I ask you of whom, _in the next generation_, would
the church consist? It would be composed of these infants, then grown to
manhood. If that generation be like the present, or the past, it will
consist mostly of unregenerate men and women. A few will be
converted—many will be moral—most will be wicked, and many will be most
vile. They will all, however, have entered into the church of Jesus
Christ by the door of baptism, and will every one be members of Christ’s
visible kingdom.”
“Oh, no, Mr. Courtney; we would exclude the wicked and unworthy by
process of discipline.”
“Who would exercise discipline, Mrs. Jones? This would be a body of
_unregenerate_ men. They would have no love to Christ or his cause. The
power of discipline is in their own hands. If they exclude all that do
not give evidence of piety, they will exclude themselves. They will do
no such thing. They may exclude the _openly_ and _scandalously vicious_,
for the reputation of their denomination, while there are several sects
striving for the supremacy; but if (as in those countries I spoke of)
any one sect could swallow up the rest, and by connection with the State
become the _national religion_, then a man would hold his right to the
Lord’s Supper, and all the privileges of the church, by about the same
tenure that he held his right to vote or to exercise any other privilege
of citizenship.”
“But if this is so, Mr. Courtney, why don’t we see at least some
illustrations of the principle among us now? Why are not _our_ churches
now filled with unconverted men and women?”
“Simply because you don’t act out your principles. Your churches _are_
filled with unbelievers, but you refuse to recognize them. You daily
repudiate your own acts, and continually falsify your own theory. You
baptize infants, and you _say_ you do it _to introduce them into the
church of Christ_. But you _don’t believe it_. You never treat them as
church members. You give them none of the privileges of church members.
You don’t count them in the list of your church members. They do not
regard themselves as church members. They do not claim or enjoy any of
the privileges of membership. They do not exercise the discipline of the
church on others, nor are they considered subjects for its discipline.
They are practically as separate from the church as the children of an
infidel or a Hottentot. It is thus, and _only_ thus, that you retain any
degree of purity in your actual membership. Your church consists _in
fact_, of believers, and not, as your book says, of ‘believers and their
children.’ You thus obviate one of the evils of infant baptism, by a
virtual repudiation of the act and regarding it in practice as a
nullity. Mrs. Ernest does not look upon her son Edwin as a member of the
church. She did not consider you a member, Miss Theodosia, till about a
year ago, when you professed your faith in Christ, and as they all
expressed it, ‘_joined the church_.’ How could you be said to _join_ it,
if up to that time you had not been considered as _separate_ from it?
The baptized children are urged, like others, to come out _from the
world_, and to _unite_ with the people of God, when they have believed
in Christ; and those who have thus _believed_, and made themselves a
public profession of their faith, you count as members; and to them and
them alone you give the privileges of members. And this simple fact,
that you are obliged to treat the baptized infants, _when_ they grow up,
as though they had not been baptized at all, in order to preserve the
spirituality and purity of the church, is of itself sufficient proof
that your celebrated historian, Neander, tells the truth when he says
‘It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant baptism.’”
“Well, Mr. Courtney,” replied Professor Jones, “is there any other
argument you would have urged upon the attention of my reverend
visitors, had you been present?”
“Yes, sir. I would have said further: Gentlemen, if you found infant
baptism on Jewish circumcision; if you declare, that the Christian and
the Jewish Church are the same, but only under different dispensations;
and that because infants were circumcised in the old, infants must be
baptized in the new, how can you get rid of the necessity for a
_national_ church? The Jewish Church was a national church: it united
Church and State. The Christian is the same, and _it_ must consequently
be a national establishment too. We must unite the Church and State. For
this, every Christian should strive. Of this union, where it exists, no
Christian should complain; for there is certainly as much Scriptural
authority for it as there is for infant baptism. And further, gentlemen,
you must receive and recognize not merely three orders of the ministry,
like the Episcopalians; not merely deacons, priests, and bishops, but
also a grand and supreme ruler of them all, similar to the Pope. The
Jewish polity had its common priests, its chief priests—who controlled
certain numbers of the others—and its _High_ Priest, who was above them
all. So, to correspond, there should be the Presbyters, the Bishops, and
the Archbishops, if not the Pope. This has quite as much, and the same
sort of Scriptural authority as infant baptism. To this, they would have
replied, by saying, that the constitution of the Christian church is to
be found in the _New Testament_, and that we learn what its officers
were, by seeing what ones were ordered or recognized by Christ and the
Apostles; and they neither commanded nor recognized but _one_ order of
ministers. This is good logic, I do not object to it. But I ask if the
_membership_ of the Christian church is not designated in the New
Testament even more clearly than its _officers_? If baptism is the door
of entrance, show me a single instance where any one is permitted, much
less commanded, to enter in upon the faith of any but himself. Show me
any instance in which an infant was received, or ordered to be received;
any in which one was recognized as a church member, or even where there
was the slightest allusion to him as such. They cannot find one; and so,
upon their own principles, must take the whole paraphernalia of
Episcopacy, and Church and State, or give up infant baptism.”
“But, Mr. Courtney, as you say that among us Presbyterians in this
country, infant baptism is a _mere nullity_, as we don’t count the
baptized as church members, or give up the discipline of the church into
their hands; as they have, in fact, no more to do with the church than
other people, and cannot, therefore, injure its standing or diminish its
spirituality, what _harm can it do_ to baptize infants?”
“What harm! Alas! madam, I am incompetent to tell the thousandth part of
the harm that it has done, is doing, and will continue to do so long as
it is practiced. Pardon me, if I decline attempting to answer your
question.”
“Well then, if you can’t tell what harm it does, why do you talk so much
against it?”
“I can’t tell! Oh, yes, but I _can_ tell. I can tell so much that you
would not have the patience to hear. I can tell such things of it, that
you would almost think it impolite to mention. And that is, in truth,
the reason why I felt disposed to decline a proper reply to your
question. If I should speak of this act, which _you_ perform as a
religious _duty_, as I think it deserves, I should characterize it as a
_heinous sin_, an act of daring rebellion against God; and this you
would think scarcely becoming in me as your guest. If I should tell you
all the harm I know of infant baptism, instead of convincing, I should
probably make you angry. You have been so long accustomed to look upon
it as something sacred and holy, that you could hardly avoid feeling
indignant at hearing what I, after careful and prayerful study of the
subject, have come to think of it.”
“I don’t see how you could say much worse things about it than you have
already; but I assure you that I will keep my temper, let you say what
you may. So you may consider yourself as having full license to say to
me in my own house, any thing that you would feel at liberty to say to
me or any one any where else.”
“Yes,” rejoined Mrs. Ernest, “do go on and tell us all you think about
it. I have some curiosity to understand just what you Baptists do think
of us Presbyterians. I know you have a very mean opinion of us, but I
would like to know just how mean it is.”
“Go on, Courtney; you have the ladies’ curiosity excited now, and you
will be obliged to gratify it. If you don’t _tell_ what you think, they
will imagine it is something very horrible indeed. For myself, I am
satisfied now that it is a thing _not commanded_, and therefore I would
not practice it; but I don’t see what great _harm_ there is in it. It is
a simple ceremony, and if not required, a very _useless_ one; but I
don’t see who is hurt by it. We are, however, all of us prepared now to
hear hard things from the Baptists. We don’t look for any thing else.”
“I should be very sorry to believe that Baptists were accustomed to say
hard things _of_ their opponents, whatever they may feel it their duty
to say _to_ them. Mrs. Ernest thinks I have a very mean opinion of
Presbyterians. She is utterly mistaken. Many of the best and most
earnest-hearted children of God whom I have ever known are
Presbyterians. I not only esteem them highly, I love them dearly. I love
them not only as Individuals, but as Christians. I count them my
brethren and my sisters in the Lord; but at the same time, I think they
have been educated in error, and are in some things most grossly
deceived. They are to that extent wrong in their faith, and wrong in
their practice. The more I love them, the more I would rejoice to set
them right. I hate error and wrong in them as in others. I oppose it; I
reason against it; I denounce it in them as well as in others. It is not
their persons, but their _opinions_ that I war against. In most cases, I
do not even esteem them less for holding these erroneous opinions; for I
know they are sincere and conscientious. They have been deceived by
those who have instructed them. They have never had the truth laid
fairly before their minds. Early education, denominational attachments,
and prejudices have enveloped their intellects in such a cloud, that it
is hard for the clear light of Scripture truth to find its way into
their hearts. I was as honest and sincere when I believed that
sprinkling was baptism, and that infants were to be baptized, as I am
now. So was Miss Theodosia. Nor were we suddenly convinced that we were
wrong. The light shone in little by little. What was at first a doubt,
became a certainty by patient investigation. It is not long since I
said, as you do—infant baptism is not commanded. It is not authorized by
the Word of God, but still it is only a useless ceremony. Let those who
will, engage in it. No good is done; but yet it does no harm. Since that
time, I have studied the subject more carefully. The more I looked at
it, the more fearful it appeared. And I am now fully convinced, that he
who baptizes an infant in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
_is guilty of a most enormous sin in the sight of God_! And this is not
less true because good men have done it, and are doing it still. Good
men have often been ignorantly guilty of most enormous crimes. That
excellent and holy man of God, Rev. John Newton, was for years after his
conversion engaged in the slave trade. It was then considered a
reputable and righteous business. Many good men of the past generation
were engaged in the manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks. It was
then considered a legitimate and Christian calling. No good man will
engage in it now. Their ignorance was their excuse. God forgave them as
he did Paul for persecuting his people—because he did it ignorantly, and
verily thought he was doing God service. His conscientious sincerity did
not, however, make the act a righteous one. The deed was still one of
terrible wickedness and daring impiety. So I say of those who practice
infant baptism; so I would say _to_ them if I could. They may be good
men. Some of them are good men—earnest, warm-hearted, devoted
Christians; but they are ignorantly _sinning against God_. It may not be
becoming in me to _reprove_ men older, and better, and more useful than
myself; but surely I may entreat them, as my brethren and fathers, to do
‘_no more so wickedly_.’”
“But what is there so wicked about it, Mr. Courtney?”
“Much every way. In the first place, if you will excuse me for talking
so plainly, _infant baptism, as practiced by Presbyterians in this
country, is a continually repeated falsehood_!
“You _say_ that ‘baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained
by Jesus Christ, not only for the _solemn admission_ of the party
baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and
seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of
regeneration, of _remission of sins_, and of his giving up unto God,
through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.’—_Con. of Faith_, p.
144.
“Now, this is either true or false. If it is _true_, then the person
baptized _is admitted_ into the visible church of Christ. You say it is
true, and that you _do thus admit_ him; but, at the same time, if I
point you to one of these members thus received in infancy, staggering
from the grog-shop, and ask you if he is a member, you tell me—_No_. You
would be ashamed to think that such a wretch had any connection with
your church. Is his father a member? Yes, one of the best men in the
church. Did he have his children baptized? Yes, I suppose he did. Has
this man ever been excluded? No, you reply, he never _joined_ the
church. He grew up a wild and reckless boy, and has always been a
vicious, dissipated man. He was never in the church; nobody ever thought
of such a thing. There is an amiable young lady, moral, irreproachable
in her character; but she makes no pretensions to _religion_—she is
perfectly indifferent to it. Is _she_ a member of your church? Oh, no;
our members are all spiritual-minded Christians. She has never even
expressed a conviction of sin, or even the slightest desire to join the
church. Why do you ask if she is a member? Simply because I remember
when she was _baptized_. Does not baptism admit persons into the visible
church? Yes; but we never _consider_ them as members till they make a
profession of religion and join the church again. Then your baptism is a
solemn falsehood, for it does not admit into the church at all.
“But now, if you take the other horn of the dilemma, and say we _do_
admit them—then I reply, you are guilty of introducing into the church
of Christ wicked and unregenerate men and women. If you recognize them
as members, and treat them as members, you at once destroy the
distinction between the church and the world. The church no longer is
Christ’s kingdom. It is no more a body of _his_ people. It consists, in
part at least, of the wicked and profligate _descendants_ of his people.
“But you say, further, that baptism is to the baptized ‘a sign and a
seal of his ingrafting into Christ’—‘of his regeneration’—and of
‘remission of his sins,’ etc. Now this is true or it is false. You _say_
it is true. A mother brings her babe to have it sprinkled. It is a
beautiful child, and she verily thinks she is doing God service—and is,
herself, a lovely object, as she stands there with the infant in her
arms. But now I ask you, Is that child ‘regenerated’? Is he a ‘branch
ingrafted into Christ’? Are all his ‘sins forgiven’? In other words, is
he a _believer_ in Jesus Christ? You say—_No_, it is absurd to think of
such a thing. Then, I reply, your baptism _is a falsehood_—for it is
designed to signify and seal these things, which, in this subject, do
not and cannot exist. To a _believer_ in Christ, baptism has all this
significancy; but to an unconscious babe it can have none at all. There
is not, in fact, in your minds, the slightest suspicion that the child
is born again and ingrafted into Christ; and yet you say to the world,
that this ordinance is designed to signify and seal the fact that such
is actually the case.
_“Is it no harm thus, in the house of God, as a religious act, and in
the very name of Jesus, to proclaim such practical falsehoods to the
world?”_
“I declare, I had never thought of it in that light before. Have you any
other charge to make against it?”
“Yes; I say, in the next place, that _the baptism of an infant is an act
of high-handed rebellion against the Son of God_.”
Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Ernest both lifted up their hands in utter
astonishment. The former looked at him as though she expected to see him
drop down dead after making what seemed to her such an impious
announcement.
“That is the most astounding statement,” said the Professor. “But I know
you would not make it, unless you thought you had the evidence to
sustain it.”
“What!” said Mrs. Jones, “The evidence to prove that it is
_wicked!_—positively _wicked!_ to baptize a child; an act of
rebellion!—high-handed rebellion! Well, I will try to be quiet, just to
see what the man can say. Go on, Mr. Courtney; we are all attention.”
“Yes,” resumed Mr. C., “I have said it; and I will prove that it is not
only _rebellion_, but rebellion attended with such circumstances as mark
it with a character of peculiar malignancy. Not only a sin, but a
_terrible_ sin; most flagrant in itself, and most terrific in its
consequences to the church and to the world.”
“Really,” said Mrs. Jones, “I am curious to know how you will make it
out.”
“You know,” said Mr. C., “that you Presbyterians are accustomed to count
some requirements of Christ as essential, and some as non-essential—or,
at least, less essential than others. Now when Christ came into the
world, _one_ great object, if not _the_ great object of his mission, was
to establish his visible church. He set it up himself. He instructed his
disciples carefully in the nature of its laws, and especially those
organic or constitutional laws which lie at the very foundation of the
whole superstructure. To _these_ laws especially he must have attached
great importance. Willful disobedience to these fundamental rules, which
regulated and fixed the very _nature_ of the visible kingdom he
established, must have been regarded by him as a rebellion of no common
order. Now the _most important_ of these fundamental rules was that
which fixed the terms of membership in his kingdom. This lay at the
foundation of the whole business. The character, the influence, the
prosperity of his new kingdom, must depend upon the character of the
persons of whom it was composed. Now the Jewish kingdom, though it had
in it much of good, and was a beautiful type of better things to come,
yet it had included more of the evil than the good. In it the wicked
dwelt in the land, and the righteous were among them. But now Christ was
organizing not a _temporal_, but a _spiritual_ kingdom. His dominion was
to be one of interior rule—by the power of love. The subjects of this
kingdom were to be _converted men and women_, who loved God and lived to
his glory. No one could belong to it, as he told Nicodemus, who had not
_been born again_. This was his church. It was designed to be a
permanent and living illustration of the power and the purity of his
religion. The members of this church were to be his living epistles,
known and read of all, describing the nature and results of his religion
in their hearts and lives. No fact is more clearly evident than this.
The church is not only commanded to be holy—exhorted to be holy—but it
is said to be holy, and addressed as though it was thus holy. It is
always and everywhere regarded as a body of professedly converted men
and women. As many as were baptized into Christ had put on Christ. They
were those who trusted in Christ. They walked by faith. They lived, but
not they—it was Christ that lived in them. They had been sinners, but
were called to be saints, and now had an inheritance among them that
were sanctified. They were a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Not
of the world, not like the world, for Christ had chosen them out of the
world. Such was the church as he established it, and such he intended it
should continue to the end of time. Now to secure to it this character,
he determined that none should be admitted into it but those who
repented of sin, and believed on him with saving faith. The door of
entrance into this church was by the ordinance of baptism. Consequently,
when any one repented and believed, and gave evidence that he was born
again, he was to be baptized, and henceforth counted among his people.
The very nature of the church, and the object of its establishment,
required that _no others should ever be admitted_. How then, I ask, can
he look without abhorrence and indignation upon _that act_, in which a
minister of this church—claiming to act by his authority—subverts the
very foundation of his church, changes its nature, and defeats the very
object of its establishment, by introducing into it, knowingly and
willfully, persons who are confessedly not penitents, not believers, not
regenerate, but the children of wrath even as others.
“If baptism converted them—if by the act itself they were
regenerated—there would be some excuse for this course; but no one of
_you_ will pretend to believe that it has any such influence. You know
that a baptized child grows up a sinner, just as his unbaptized brother
does. _Doctors of Divinity_ talk about such things; but no man or woman
of common sense believes that the sprinkling of a little water on a
baby’s face changes its heart, and makes it a new creature in Christ
Jesus. If it is introduced by this act into Christ’s visible church, it
comes in a sinner, as it is born; it comes in an unconverted,
impenitent, and unbelieving sinner—just such a sinner as Christ forbade
his ministers ever to introduce. And now what is the consequence? Let us
look at the history of the church. It is enough to make one who loves
Jesus and his cause weep tears of blood, to see what have been the
results of this rebellious departure from the instructions of the
Master. For the first two or three hundred years the church remained
what Christ intended. It was a body of professed believers. All history
accords to its members a character of singular uprightness and purity.
It was a light shining in darkness. But when infants, instead of
converts, began to be introduced, its whole character was changed. Its
spirituality was gone. Its very ministers were worldly men, contending
for wealth, and place, and power. In the course of a few generations, it
had, like the national churches of Europe of the present day, swallowed
up the world. All the villainy and depravity of the land was in the
church, or in that establishment that _called itself_ the church of
Jesus Christ. No Pagan, not even the tiger-hearted Nero himself, was so
cruel in his persecution of the Christians, as this body of baptized
infants became when it grew up to manhood, and was invested with the
power to kill. Nothing which the most infernal hatred could suggest, and
the most diabolical ingenuity could invent, was thought too hard for
these baptized ones to inflict upon those who professed faith in Christ,
yet would not conform to their newly introduced rites and ceremonies.
The most bitter and relentless persecution was directed especially
against those who denied infant baptism. This has continued through
every age. It has not been confined to the Roman Catholics. It has been
practiced by all the so-called churches _that received infant members
_(your own included) whenever and wherever they have been able to obtain
the power. The world has been deluged with the blood of the saints, shed
by these members of the church, whom men, professing to be _his
ministers_, have, in his name, though against his authority, introduced
in their infancy. Now I say, the act which thus subverts the very nature
of the church of Christ, and leads to such terrific consequences, _is no
common sin_. Such perversion of the very fundamental law of his church
is no common rebellion. It is a great and terrible crime. It has led to
great and terrible results even in the present world. Its consequences,
even here, have been so terrific, that our very hearts shudder but to
think of them; what they may be in the eternal world, we cannot
conceive.
“But I will go further. I said ‘the baptism of an infant was a _sin_—an
act of high-handed _rebellion_ against God.’ I have proved it. I will
now say even more than this. _Infant baptism is impious_—it is an act of
sacrilege.”
“Be careful, Mr. Courtney, be careful|” exclaimed Mrs. Jones. “This is a
solemn subject. You should not thoughtlessly make use of words which
convey such horrible impressions.”
“I _am_ careful, Mrs. Jones. I have chosen these words deliberately,
because they are the only words that will fully express my meaning. I
mean to say that it is _impious_ for a professed minister of Jesus
Christ to stand up in the presence of the world, and in HIS name, and by
HIS authority, perform, as a solemn and sacred ordinance of HIS
religion, an act which HE NEVER COMMANDED OR AUTHORIZED! I regard it as
a fixed fact, that there is no such commandment or authority. We have
been searching for it carefully; we cannot find it. It is not in the
book. And now the question comes up—‘Even if it be not commanded, what
_harm_ is there in it?’ This is the question we are endeavoring to
answer. I say, _If God has not commanded it or authorized it, then to
perform it as an ordinance of HIS religion, in HIS name, and by HIS
professed authority, is an act of impious sacrilege!_ It can be nothing
less. I know your preachers do not so _intend_ it; I know that they
would shudder at the very thought. They verily believe _they_ have the
authority. They do it _ignorantly_, as Paul persecuted the church. But
though their ignorance may, in a degree, excuse their conduct, it does
not change the nature of the act. And for one who has studied the
subject, who has looked for the authority and failed to find it, as we
have, for such a one thus, in the name of God, to do what God has not
required, must require a degree of temerity which I trust few of the
professed ministers of Christ possess.”
“I declare, Mr. Courtney, it fills me with a sort of horror to hear you
talk. I am almost sorry I insisted on your saying any thing about this
subject. I don’t and can’t believe that what you say is true. And yet I
shall never be able again to see an infant baptized without a feeling of
terror.”
“But why can’t you believe that I tell the truth? Have I not proved
every position by the Word of God?”
“Oh, as to that, any body can prove almost any thing they please by the
Scriptures. Unitarians, and Universalists, and Methodists, and
Episcopalians, and all sorts of people, find plenty of proof in the
Bible for all they teach.”
“Then how are God’s people to know what he requires of them?”:
“Well, I don’t see as we _can_ know with any certainty. I have been
raised a Presbyterian, and taught that they were right; and I believe I
had as soon risk my soul on their faith as any other. I don’t see as I
need to give myself much trouble about it.”
“You do not deny, Mrs. Jones, that you ought to obey God rather than
man, and that the Scriptures are a perfect and infallible rule of faith
and practice?”
“Oh, no, I grant that; but the difficulty is, that I can’t understand
just what they teach. If I could know what they require, I must believe
and do it. But Mr. Johnson tells me one thing, and you tell me another,
and the Methodist tells me another; and between you all, I don’t know
really what I must believe or do.”
“I will tell you, then. God will hold _you_ responsible for _your own_
faith and practice. You are not, therefore, to rely on me, or the
Methodists, or on Mr. Johnson, but you are to go to the Bible for
_yourself_. If there is any command to baptize infants there, you can
find it, and you can read and understand it as well as a Doctor of
Divinity. Do not take for granted that what they say or what I say is
true, but _search the Scriptures_ for yourself. Make use of all the
helps you can, but don’t let any one convince you that any doctrine is
taught, or any practice required, by the Word, till _you can see it in
the Word_. You will not find the teachings of the Scriptures to be
either doubtful or contradictory when you go to _them_, and are
_willing_ to believe and practice just what they teach. Doctors of
Divinity may contradict each other and themselves, but God’s Word is not
a book of doubtful oracles. It speaks plainly; it speaks decidedly; and
it speaks always the same thing. Try it yourself with reference to this
subject. Your pastor tells you that he has authority in the New
Testament to baptize infants. Ask him to _show it to you_. If it is
there, he can find it. You can see it as well as he can. He will,
perhaps, refer you to the commission, Go baptize, etc.; but you will
say, this is only a commission to baptize _believers_. It does not say a
word about believers _and their children_, but only about believers. He
will then remind you that Jesus said, Suffer the little ones to come
unto me, etc. You will reply, they did not come to be _baptized_, but to
be _prayed_ for: ‘And he laid his hands on them, and departed.’ This is
good authority to _pray_ for children, and to devote them to God by
faith, and seek his blessing on them, but none for baptizing them. He
will then remind you that Peter says, ‘the promise is to you and to your
children.’ You will reply, this is a promise of the ‘gift of the Holy
Ghost,’ not of baptism; and, moreover, it is limited to those ‘whom the
Lord our God shall call;’ and God does not call unconscious babes. He
will then tell you, that ‘the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the
believing husband, etc.: else were your children unclean, but now are
they holy.’ To this, your good sense would reply, that there is here not
a word about baptism; and if the child is to be baptized because it is
holy, so ought the infidel husband and the infidel wife, for they are
also sanctified or holy. He will then seek to find some _example_. He
will tell you, that there were a number of _families_ baptized, and it
is _almost_ certain there must have been infant children in _some_ of
them. You turn to each place, and find that they who were baptized are
the same who are said to have heard the Word, believed in God, rejoiced
in God, spake with tongues, glorified God, ministered to the saints,
and, in the case of Lydia’s family, are called _brethren_. Finding
neither precept nor example in the New Testament, he will turn to the
Old, and tell you about the covenant with Abraham, the seal of which was
_circumcision_, and was applied to the children. Now, he will say, this
covenant includes Christians too; for Paul says, All that believe are
the children of believing Abraham. And if his children by nature were
circumcised, his children by _faith_ must be baptized. To this you will
reply, true, his children by _faith_ are to be baptized, but who are
they? Paul says, they are _believers_, not the infant offspring of
believers. You will say, further, the Jewish infants were circumcised
because God _expressly commanded_ it to be done. But God never commanded
Christians to baptize their infants. On the contrary, he directed only
the penitent, the believing, the regenerate, to be baptized, which
expressly excludes infants; and not a single infant ever was baptized
during the period of which we have the history in the Scriptures. He has
nothing more to offer. This is the substance and the sum of what _he
calls_ Scriptural authority. Dare you now, with this light in your mind,
consider the baptism of an infant an ordinance of God? I say, then, try
it for yourself. Search the Scriptures, as the Bereans did, and see if
these things are so. I do not ask you to take _my_ word for one solitary
fact or circumstance. Go to the Book. Go not to cavil, but to learn. Go
not to twist an argument out of it, but to ascertain your duty. Study
it; pray over it. Don’t rest till your mind is _satisfied_. If _you
can’t find_ infant baptism in the Word, you may take it for granted _it
is not there_, even though all the Doctors of Divinity in Christendom
assert the contrary. If you _do find it_, bring the Book, and show it to
us benighted Baptists, and we will practice it; for we do earnestly
desire, if we know our own hearts, to ‘do whatever Christ commands us.’
If you find it, it will be your _duty_ to bring it to our notice; for in
that case we are in most woeful error. If you are right, we are most
_fearfully_ wrong. If God has commanded us to baptize our infants, we
are living in open and avowed _rebellion_. But we desire to obey; and if
you will show us our error, so far from growing angry, we will _thank
you_ for the care that you show for our good.”
“There is much in what you have said,” replied Professor Jones, “that
strikes me with amazement. I cannot deny, that infant baptism is in
opposition to the Word of God; but yet, I have never conceived of it as
the terrible thing you have represented it. I see, however, that it must
be even so. If it does not introduce people into the church, it is a
falsehood on its very face; for this is what it pretends to do. If it
does introduce them, then it evidently subverts the very foundation of
the church, as a body of believers. And if God has not commanded or
authorized it, it must, indeed, be impious to do it in his name, as
though he had. I cannot deny this; but you made some statements
concerning the results of its introduction, which I do not feel disposed
to receive solely on your assertion.”
“My dear sir, I don’t desire you to receive any thing on my assertion.
What I do not _prove_, I beg you will consider as though I did not say.
I don’t intend to make any assertion, that I cannot sustain by the very
best of testimony.”
“You said that infant baptism was not introduced in the time of the
first Christians, nor until several hundred years after Christ. And that
all churches, both Protestant and Catholic, who had embraced it, had
persecuted the saints whenever and wherever they possessed the power.
All this is quite at variance with what I have always regarded as the
truth. I do not deny that it is so, but I cannot believe it without the
evidence.”
Mr. Courtney glanced at the clock, as he replied:
“It is now near bedtime. We will not have time to-night; but at any time
you may suggest, I will convince you that I did not speak without
reason. I will prove to you, by the testimony of the ancient Fathers, by
the testimony of _your_ own most eminent historians and divines, that
what I said is strictly and entirely true. I will show you, that infant
baptism was introduced in the same way, and by the same sort of
authority, that pouring and sprinkling were—only that it began at a
somewhat earlier day. I will show you, too, what were the consequences
to the true believers, who refused to sanction the innovation—how they
were driven out to dwell in caves and dens of the earth—how they were
tortured and tormented—hunted like wild beasts; and that not a few
hundreds, or thousands, but millions have gained a martyr’s crown—slain
for the testimony of Jesus; not by Pagans; not by infidels; not by the
people of the world; but by _the members_ of the (so-called) churches of
Jesus Christ, made members in their infancy by this ‘_blessed_’
ordinance of infant baptism. Where shall we meet?”
“Oh, come back here,” said Mrs. Jones. “I begin to feel a sort of
fearful interest in your strange teachings; something—if you will pardon
the comparison—like I would expect to feel in the dying speech of some
outlawed wretch, denouncing, on the very scaffold, all that good men
hold dear and sacred. I do not mean any disrespect, but I cannot think
of any thing else which will so well describe my emotions. I shudder
while you talk, to think that you should dare to speak of one of the
most beautiful and holy rites of our religion as of a deadly sin; and
yet I want to hear all that you have to say. Sister Ernest and Theodosia
will come over with you again to-morrow night.”
“So be it, then. We will meet here to-morrow night.”
THE NINTH NIGHT’S STUDY.
Of the time and manner in which the baptism of infants was substituted
by men for the baptism of believers, which Christ commanded.
Ninth Night’s Study.
There was no one of the company that assembled at the Professor’s house
on Tuesday evening, to continue this discussion, who looked so anxiously
for the time of meeting, as did Mrs. Jones. The idea that an act which
she had always regarded as one of the most beautiful and holy of all the
rites pertaining to our holy religion, was really no part of that
religion, but in fact directly opposed to it, and forbidden by it, had
haunted her mind continually ever since the last night’s conversation.
She had awakened her husband at midnight, to tell him that she should
ever after be afraid to see an infant child baptized—and all the day she
had been anxiously looking at the arguments of Mr. Courtney, as she
called them up one after another in her memory, but could see no fallacy
in the reasoning, though it led to what she considered such fearful
conclusions. One reflection, however, gave her some comfort. Infant
baptism _could not be a sin, otherwise good men could not have practiced
it_. She was sure, therefore, that there must be some defect in his
reasoning, though she could not see it.
And when they had come together, she began the conversation by asking
Mr. Courtney if he had not said that he regarded Presbyterian and other
Pedobaptist ministers as good and pious men?
“Certainly; I said that I knew some such. Men of God, whom I love as my
brethren in the Gospel. And I know personally of no one among them whom
I would be willing to condemn as being a worse man than myself.”
“But how can you say that, Mr. Courtney, when you know that they all
practice infant baptism, and teach others to do so, which you say is not
only a sin, but a most grievous sin: not only sin, but impious
sacrilege? It seems to me you are the most inconsistent man I ever heard
talk.”
“Will you permit me, madam, to answer your question by asking several
others? Were Luther and Calvin and the Reformers good and holy men?”
“Of course they were, Mr. Courtney. No one has ever doubted that.”
“Was Archbishop Cranmer, who suffered martyrdom for his religion, under
Mary of England, a good and holy man?”
“Certainly; he must have been.”
“Were our Puritan Fathers, who settled New England, good and holy men,
deserving our reverential and affectionate remembrance for their
Christian principle, which led them to sacrifice all for a conscience
void of offense?”
“Most assuredly they were; but what has that to do with my question?”
“You will see, madam, when I have asked one more. Is it not a great and
fearful sin to persecute and take the lives of men for their religious
faith?”
“Of course it is; and no good man will do it.”
“And yet, madam, our Pilgrim Fathers persecuted the Quakers and the
Baptists, and condemned them to banishment and death. Cranmer, before he
was burnt, had been very officious and energetic in bringing Baptists to
the stake. (See Neal’s History of the Puritans). Calvin procured the
condemnation of Servetus for his religion, and Luther urged the princes
of his country to persecute those who could not conform to his opinions.
You see, therefore, that good and pious men may be led by their very
piety (under mistaken notions of duty), to do things which are most
fearfully wrong and sinful. Paul _verily thought_ he was doing God
service when he killed the followers of Jesus; but his mistake did not
make the action right. It was still a most awful sin. He did it
ignorantly, and God forgave him. So he will forgive your Pedobaptist
brethren who in their ignorance imagine they are obeying him in
baptizing little children into his church. But the act is sinful,
terribly sinful, nevertheless. You are to take _God’s Word_, not the
example of those whom you consider holy men, as your standard of right.”
“If I did not misunderstand you,” said Uncle Jones, “you told us last
night, that infant baptism was utterly unknown in the time of the first
Christians. Now this is altogether at variance with what our ministers
have always taught us to believe. I am sure that they have labored
sedulously to make the impression on our minds, that from the very times
of the Apostles till about six hundred years ago, no one had ever
questioned that infants should be baptized. I am sure that I have been
told again and again, from the pulpit and in private conversation, that
it was the united testimony of _all_ the Fathers that infant baptism was
received from the Apostles, and that we not only have no account of the
time and manner of its introduction, but no history of any period of the
church when it was not universally received and practiced.”
“Very likely,” replied Mr. Courtney. “Doctors of Divinity often deal in
just such sweeping assertions. The same men who assure you that the New
Testament _abounds_ with proof of infant baptism, though no man living
or dead has ever been able to show for it a single precept or example,
can well afford to make just such statements about history. And I say to
them in this, as in the other case, If there be any record of infant
baptism in the first ages of the church, you can _show it_, and I can
_see it_. Your mere assertions are not worth a straw—bring in your
proof.”
“But have they no such proof?” asked Mrs. Jones. “Surely the ministers
of our church are as good and as truthful as those of any church, and
would not make such assertions without good and sufficient authority.”
“I will answer your question, madam, by referring you to the writings of
some of the most eminent ecclesiastical historians, who were
Pedobaptists, like yourselves, but who would not stoop to falsify
history to promote the interests of a creed. Let me ask your attention,
and yours especially, Professor Jones, to the testimony of a very
remarkable class of these witnesses. Soon after the Reformation, a
project was set on foot by the Pedobaptist Protestants of Germany, to
collect and embody in a permanent form all the known and reliable facts
in the history of the early Christian churches. A great number of the
most learned and eminent men of Europe engaged in the work. They had
access to all the stores of ancient learning, and were fully competent
to explore and appropriate them. Lutheran princes and powerful nobles
were patrons of the work, and neither money nor labor was spared to make
it a faithful picture of the ancient churches. It proposed to give the
history of each century by itself; and as it was published at Magdeburg,
its authors are commonly called the ‘_Magdeburg Centuriators_.’ It was
executed with great care, and has ever since its publication been
regarded as one of the most faithful and accurate records of early
church history. Now, I want you to remember that there was not a single
Baptist among these men; and then observe their language, which is as
follows: ‘They [the Apostles] baptized only the adult or aged, whether
Jews or Gentiles, whereof we have instances in Acts ii., viii., x.,
xvi., and xix. chapters. As to the baptism of _infants_ we have no
example. As to the _manner_ of baptizing, it was by _dipping_ or
_plunging_ into the water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, according to the allusions contained in the 6th of Romans and the
2d of Colossians.’ Thus they speak of the first century; and of the
second century they say: ‘It does not appear from any approved authors
that there was any change or variation from the former century in regard
to baptism.’
“The learned and acute Erasmus, writing about the same time, says, in
his Notes on the 6th of Romans: ‘It is nowhere expressed in the
apostolic writings that they baptized children.’
“John Calvin, the founder of your Presbyterian Church, says: ‘It is
nowhere expressed by the Evangelists that any one infant was baptized.’
“Ludovicus Vives, a name of high historical authority, says: ‘None of
old was wont to be baptized but in grown age, and who desired it, and
understood what it was.’
“Dr. Taylor, of the Church of England, says: ‘It is against the
perpetual analogy of Christ’s doctrine to baptize infants; for besides
that, Christ never gave any precept to baptize them, nor ever himself or
his Apostles (that did appear) did baptize any of them. All that he or
his Apostles said concerning it, requires the previous dispositions of
baptism, of which infants are not capable.’—_Liber. Proph._, p. 289.
“Dr. Mosheim, who is universally known and regarded as high Pedobaptist
authority, says, in his Ecclesiastical History of the first century: ‘No
persons were admitted to baptism but such as had been previously
instructed into the principal points of Christianity, and _had also
given satisfactory proof of pious dispositions_ and upright intentions.’
Of the second century he says: ‘The sacrament of baptism was, during
this century, administered publicly twice a year at the festivals of
Easter and Whitsuntide. The persons to be baptized, after they had
repeated the creed, confessed and renounced their sins, particularly the
devil and his pompous allurements, were immersed under water, and
received into Christ’s kingdom by a solemn invocation.’ Of course they
were not unconscious infants.
“Neander, another of your own historians, who has a world-wide
reputation, says expressly: ‘Baptism was administered at first only to
adults, as men were accustomed to conceive of baptism and faith as
strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism
from Apostolic institution, and the recognition of it (which followed
somewhat later) as an Apostolical _tradition_, serves to confirm this
hypothesis.’
“Coleman, another of your own writers, and a citizen of our own country,
says: ‘Though the _necessity_ of infant baptism was _asserted_ in Africa
and Egypt in the beginning of the _third_ century, it was even to the
end of the _fourth_ by no means generally observed, least of all in the
Eastern Church, and it finally became a general ecclesiastical
institution in the age of Augustine,’ which you know was at the
beginning of the fifth century.
“Now tell me what sort of consciences your ministers must have when they
assert, in the face of such testimony as this, from _their own most
eminent historians_, that infants were always considered right subjects
for baptism! But this is not all. We have positive proof that
Constantine and Gregory, and a great multitude of eminent men whose
history is recorded, and who are known to have been born of Christian
parents and reared in Christian communities, were yet not baptized till
they had made their profession of faith in mature years—while there is
not on record a single, solitary instance of the baptism of _a child_
till the year of our Lord three hundred and seventy, and that was the
son of the Emperor Vallens, which was thought to be dying, and was
baptized by the command of his majesty, who swore he would not be
contradicted; and moreover, this was not a little infant, but a boy of
six years old.—_See_ _Robinson’s Hist_.
“Now, if in the face of this testimony they say that infant baptism was
practiced, let them show the proof. Let them bring a single case. Let
them prove their own most eminent ecclesiastical historians to be false
witnesses, and we will attach all due importance to their statements.”
“But, surely, Mr. Courtney,” replied Mrs. Ernest, “our ministers cannot
be acquainted with these testimonies.”
“It is their own fault then,” said he. “These books are in their
libraries—they quote them on other subjects—and if they do not know what
they teach on this, it is because they willfully close their eyes to the
light in order that they may remain in ignorance.”
“You say,” rejoined Theodosia, “that these writers, who make such
concessions, are Pedobaptists. They were members of churches which
baptize infants by sprinkling. They were themselves baptized by
sprinkling in their infancy; and yet they state, in most express terms,
that it was not so commanded by Christ—it was not so ordained by the
Apostles—and nothing of the sort was practiced by the first Christians,
nor for several hundred years. How, then, could they conscientiously
remain even for a day in their church connection? I cannot understand
what sort of consciences such men have.”
“Nor can I, Miss Ernest, but I will let them speak for themselves. The
learned Curcellæus is one of them, and he says: ‘Infant baptism was not
known in the world the first two centuries after Christ. In the third
and fourth it was approved by few; but at length, in the fifth, it began
to obtain in divers places; and therefore,’ he continues, ‘we
Pedobaptists observe this rite indeed as an ancient custom, but not as
an Apostolic institution. The custom of baptizing infants did not begin
before the third century after Christ, and there appears not the least
footstep of it for the first two centuries.’ Or if you prefer a more
recent exposition of their reasons, take Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical
Literature, a standard Pedobaptist theological work, and turn to page
287, vol. 2.”
“I have the book on the table here,” said Uncle Jones. “Here, Theo.,
find the place and read. Here it is.”
“‘Infant baptism was established neither by Christ nor his Apostles. In
all places where we find the necessity of baptism notified, either in a
dogmatic or historical point of view, it is evident that it was only
meant for those who were capable of comprehending the word preached, and
of being converted to Christ by an act of their own will.
“‘A pretty sure testimony of its non-existence in the days of the
Apostles, may be inferred from 1 Cor. vii. 14, since Paul would
certainly have referred to the baptism of infants for their holiness;
but even in later days, several teachers of the church, such as
Tertullian (De Bapt.) and others, reject this custom. Indeed, his church
in general (that of North Africa) adhered longer than others to the
primitive regulations. Even when the baptism of infants was already
_theoretically_ derived from the Apostles, its _practice_ was,
nevertheless, for a long time confined to a mature age.’
“Did you not say that the author of this work was a Pedobaptist, Mr.
Courtney?”
“Certainly I did. It was prepared by a number of very learned and
eminent Pedobaptist divines, and is regarded by Pedobaptists as a
standard theological work.”
“Well, I must say, that Pedobaptist theological writers are strange
people,” replied Theodosia, “but I will read on:—‘In support of a
contrary opinion the advocates [of infant baptism] in former ages (now
hardly any) used to appeal to Matt. xix. 14, Suffer little children,
etc.; but their strongest argument in its favor is the regulation of
baptizing all the members of a household or family, 1 Cor. xvi. 17; Acts
viii. 8; xvi. 33; but in none of these instances has it been proved that
there were little children among them. And even supposing that there
were, there was no necessity for excluding them from baptism in plain
words, since such exclusion was understood as a matter of course.’
“Surely, Mr. Courtney, the man is a Baptist!”
“Oh, no,” said Mr. Courtney; “read on. You will come to his strong
reasons presently.” She read on:
“‘Many circumstances conspired early to introduce infant baptism. The
confusion between the outward and inward conditions of baptism, and the
magical effect that was attributed to it; confusion of thought about the
visible and the invisible church; condemning all those who did not
belong to the former; the doctrine of the natural corruption of man so
closely connected with the preceding; and finally the desire of
distinguishing Christian children from the Jewish and heathen, and of
commending them more effectually to the care of the Christian
community—all these circumstances, and many more, have contributed to
the introduction of infant baptism at a very early period.’”
“Now we will come to _his reasons_. He has told us that it is not in the
Scriptures; that it was not ordained by Christ; that it was not known to
the Apostles; that it was the offspring of that error which attributed a
magical influence to baptism, and to the mistaken idea that no one could
be saved without it—together with numerous other circumstances; and now
read on, if you please, and learn the reasons why he, notwithstanding
all this, is a Pedobaptist.”
“‘But, on the other hand, the baptism of children is not at all _at
variance_ with the principles of the Christian religion, after what has
been observed on the separation of regeneration and baptism; for since
it cannot be determined when the former begins (the real test of its
existence being only in the holiness continued to the end of a man’s
life), _the fittest point of baptism is evidently the beginning of
life_.’ ‘Nevertheless, the profession of faith is still needed to
complete it. Confirmation, or some equivalent observance, is therefore a
very important consummation. The _fides infantium_ [faith of infants] is
an absurd assumption of which the Scriptures know nothing.’ ‘On the
other hand, the baptized child is strongly recommended to the community
and to the Spirit of God dwelling therein, becoming the careful object
of the education and holy influence of the church: 1 Cor. vii. 14,
_Nature and experience therefore teach us to retain the baptism of
infants_ now that it is introduced.’”
“Oh, yes,” said Mrs. Jones, “I always feel a much greater interest in
children that have been baptized. It is such a blessed privilege to
bring our little ones to God, and dedicate them to him in the presence
of all his people.”
“For my part,” replied Mr. Courtney, “I greatly prefer Christ and his
Apostles, to ‘nature and experience,’ as my teachers in religion. It is,
indeed, a blessed privilege to be allowed to dedicate our children to
God; and for doing this, we have full authority in the Word of God. We
are to dedicate them by faith and prayer, and bring them up for him.
But, let me say to you, in the language of Dr. Dwight, one of the most
eminent ministers of your own church: ‘Nothing is a privilege, in the
religious sense, but what God has made such; and he has made nothing
such, except in his own way and on his own terms. Baptism is a privilege
when administered and received in the manner appointed by him, _but in
no other_. When this ordinance is received in any other manner, it is
plainly no obedience to any command of his, and therefore has no
promise—and, let me add, no encouragement to hope for a
blessing.’”—_Dwight’s Sermons_, vol. iv. p. 343.
“I am almost afraid,” said Uncle Jones, “that you will think me
captious; but I cannot yet feel quite satisfied about this matter. You
have, indeed, shown very clearly, that many very eminent historians and
standard writers, who, it is well known to all the world, were.
Pedobaptists, have conceded—and, indeed, have in some sense
_proved_—that infant baptism did not originate till the third century,
or later. But yet, it seems to me that I have seen quotations from the
early fathers themselves, which proved that baptism of infants had been
recently practiced from the very first. Has there not been recently
discovered some ancient manuscript, which throws light upon this
subject? I am sure I have heard some rumor of such a thing.”
“You are not at all mistaken,” replied Mr. Courtney. “A manuscript of
Hyppolytus was found, in 1842, in an Armenian convent on Mount Athos, in
Turkey, by Minoides Minas, a Greek scholar of celebrity, who was
employed at the time by M. Villeman to search for ancient books and
manuscripts. This work has been carefully examined by many eminent
critics and scholars, and there is now no doubt that it is genuine. Mr.
Bunsen, a very noted Pedobaptist scholar, has made it the basis of a
book on the early churches, in the preparation of which he consulted
also the ancient canons and constitutions.”
“But pray tell us who was Hippolytus?”
“He was the pastor or bishop of the church at Pontus, near the mouth of
the Tiber, in Italy, and had been a pupil of Iræneus. He lived in the
early part of the third century, and probably wrote the work in question
about two hundred and twenty-five or two hundred and thirty years after
Christ.”
“Well, what is his testimony about baptism?”
“He says: ‘We in our days never defended the baptism of children, which
in my day had _only begun to be practiced_ in some regions, unless it
were as an exception and innovation. The baptism of _infants_ we did not
know.’ And Mr. Bunsen, his translator and editor, adds (vol. iii. p.
180): ‘Pedobaptism, in the more modern sense—meaning thereby baptism of
new-born infants, with the vicarious promises of parents or other
sponsors—was utterly unknown to the early church, not only down to the
end of the second century, but indeed to the middle of the third.’”
“But,” asked Mrs. Jones, “is there nothing at all in the early fathers
in favor of infant baptism?”
“Not _one word_, madam, for the first two centuries—not even an allusion
to it. It had not yet been invented. They had never _heard of it_; nor,
so far as we can judge from their writings, had they so much as
_thought_ of it.
“CLEMENS, who is counted among the first, and is said to have been a
companion of Paul, says: ‘They are right subjects of baptism, who have
passed through an examination and instruction.’
“IGNATIUS, of the same age, who is said to have been a disciple of John,
and to have seen and talked with Peter and Paul, says: ‘Baptism ought to
be accompanied with faith, love, and patience, after preaching.’ The
other writers of this century were Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Hermes,
and Barnabas (?); but it is admitted by those who have searched for it
most diligently, that _not one word_ about infant baptism is to be found
in any of their works. So also in the second century, Dr. F. A. Cox, as
quoted by Orchard, says: ‘Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of
Antioch, Tatian, Minucian, Felix, Iræneus, and Clement of Alexandria,
constitute the Christian writers of this second century; who, so far
from _directly_ speaking of infant baptism, never once utter a syllable
upon the subject.’
“CLEMENT says, indeed: ‘The baptized ought to be children in malice, but
not in understanding; even such children who, as the children of God,
have put off the old man with the garments of wickedness, and have put
on the new man.’ These are the only children he speaks of as having a
right to baptism.”
“You mention Iræneus,” said Uncle Jones. “If I do not forget, I have
heard him quoted as authority for infant baptism.”
“I have no doubt of it. Those Doctors of Divinity who consider baptism
and regeneration as all the same thing, have discovered in his writings
the following sentence: ‘Christ passed through all ages of man, that he
might save all by himself; all, I say, who are by him _regenerated_ to
God—infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and persons
advanced in years.’ Now, this is the _only_ allusion which it is
pretended that Iræneus makes to infant baptism; and some have had the
temerity, not to say the dishonesty—since they themselves consider
baptism and regeneration as the same thing, and because Iræneus, in some
_other_ place, uses regenerate in the sense of baptize—to strike out
_regenerated_ here and put in _baptized_, and then refer to Iræneus as
having recognized infant baptism.”.
“I am sure,” said Theodosia, “that the cause must be a very weak one
which requires such support, and they must be very weak advocates of any
cause who could stoop to employ such arguments in its favor.”
“So also it is claimed by some, that Justin Martyr recognized the
baptism of infants, when he says to some aged Christians that they had
been the followers of Christ from their childhood; or, as these men
read, from their _infancy_. But it is well known that, in those days,
all _minors_—that is, all under twenty-five years of age, for that was
considered the limit of manhood—were often called children, and even
infants. And we read of some instances of persons becoming bishops while
they were _infants_—that is, before they came of age; and of many
persons being led to martyrdom while they were _infants_, and making
earnest profession of the faith which they felt in their hearts, and
sealed with their blood. The Baptists will baptize as many such infants
as desire to enter into the church of Jesus Christ. But you will not
accuse us, on that account, of practicing the baptism of unconscious
babes;[3] and these mentioned by Justin Martyr, are not said to have
been _baptized_ in infancy, but to have followed Christ from their
infancy. It is not till the beginning of the third century that we find
the very first certain allusion to the baptism of children; and these
were not babes, but little boys and girls old enough to _ask for
baptism_, though yet too young to understand its import.
“By this time, salvation and baptism had begun to be regarded as
inseparable, and loving parents began to inquire anxiously, What will
become of our children if they die unbaptized? To this, the answer
commonly given was, that they must be lost. Why not, then, baptize, and
so secure their salvation? It seems that a certain wealthy lady, named
Quintilla, who was probably a mother, and felt this very natural anxiety
about her little ones, had come to the conclusion that if they asked for
baptism, they ought to have it, whether they gave evidence of conversion
or not; and she wrote a letter to Tertullian, the bishop of the church
at Carthage, to get his sanction to this novel doctrine. The answer of
Tertullian to this letter has been preserved, and contains the first
undoubted allusion to the baptism of children which is recorded in the
annals of church history.”
“If infant baptism had been a universal custom, as is pretended by
some,” said Theodosia, “there never could have been any occasion for
Quintilla to write to Tertullian on the subject, for children would have
been baptized, as a matter of course, whether they asked for it or not.”
“Very true; and Tertullian would have replied to her, that it had always
been the practice of the church to baptize the little darlings, and she
need not even wait for them to ask for it; but he did no such thing.
‘Those who administer baptism,’ he says, ‘know very well that it is not
to be rashly given.’ The good lady evidently thought that it was enough
if the children could _ask_ for it, and had quoted the Scripture, ‘Give
to him that asketh.’ To this, Tertullian says: ‘What! give to him that
asketh! Every one hath a right to it as to a thing of alms! Nay! say,
rather, give not that which is holy to the dogs; cast not your pearls
before swine; lay hands suddenly on no man; be not partaker of other
men’s sins.’ It would seem that she had referred to the cases of the
Eunuch and of Paul, as having received the ordinance as soon as they
asked for it. And to this, Tertullian replies: ‘If Philip baptized the
Eunuch on the spot, let us remember that it was done under the immediate
direction of the Lord.’ The Eunuch was a _believer_ of the Scripture;
the instruction given by Philip was seasonable; the one preached, the
other perceived the Lord Jesus, and believed on him. Water was at hand,
and the Apostle, having finished the affair, was caught away. But you
say, Paul was baptized instantly. True, because Judas, at whose house he
was, instantly knew that he was a vessel of mercy. The condescension of
God may confer his favors as he pleases, but _our wishes_ may mislead
ourselves and others.
“This lady seems to have referred, as you do, to the words of Jesus,
‘Suffer little children,’ etc. And to this, Tertullian says, as Baptists
do now: ‘The Lord does indeed say forbid them not to come unto me; and
let them come while they are growing up; let them come and _learn_, and
let them be _instructed_ when they come; _and when they understand
Christianity, let them profess themselves Christians_.’
“In another of his works, Tertullian says: ‘Adults are the only proper
subjects of baptism, because fasting, confession of sins, prayer,
profession, renouncing the devil and his works, are required of the
baptized.’
“It is evident, Therefore, that at this time, the beginning of the third
century, the baptism of children had just begun to be spoken of.
“Now, strange as it may seem to you, your Doctors of Divinity are
accustomed to base the strongest of all their historical arguments on
this letter of Tertullian to Quintilla.”
“How is that possible?”
“They say, infant baptism must have _existed_, or Tertullian would not
have opposed it. If it existed _then_, it must have existed from the
_first_, because we have no history of its introduction, and no account
of any previous opposition to it. And it is incredible that it could
have been introduced without opposition.”
“And what answer,” said Mrs. Jones, “can you make to such reasoning as
that?”
“We simply say that it did _not_ exist before. That this is the _first_
proposal to introduce it, and that it was opposed.”
“Very satisfactory, I declare! But what evidence have you that this was
the first?”
“The best evidence that is possible: _It is the first on record_. If the
advocates of infant baptism say there was any previous one, let them
_produce_ it. But we might put our defence on different ground. We might
admit that infant baptism was at the beginning of the third century a
generally received and recognized _custom of the churches_, and yet it
would not follow, by any means, that it was received from the Apostles
or had any Divine authority.
“You do not believe that the Episcopal and Catholic rite of confirmation
is of Divine authority, and yet it can be traced back as far as infant
baptism. You do not believe that there is any Divine authority for
signing the baptized with the sign of the cross, yet Tertullian
distinctly recognizes _this_ as an existing custom in his day. So he
does the giving of the newly baptized a mixture of milk and honey, and
anointing them with holy oil. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration and
of purgatory both date back to or before this early day, as do the
observance of some of the feast days and fast days, and a vast amount of
the most absurd and silly mummery of the Romish Church.
“The first we read of these fooleries, they were already in the
churches; they had, so far as we know, never been opposed; they were
there long before we find any trace of infant baptism there, and yet who
of you will dare to say, on these grounds, that Christ and his Apostles
ordained that candidates for baptism should be divested of their
clothing—should have salt put in their hands—should be daubed with the
priest’s spittle—clothed in white on coming out of the water—signed with
the sign of the cross—anointed with chrism—walk from the water with a
lighted taper in their hands, etc., etc.
“The truth is, the simplicity of the Gospel was corrupted even in the
Apostles’ days; and it was not the least onerous of their labors to
prevent and correct unauthorized additions to and modifications of their
teachings. _The simple fact, therefore, that we find any doctrine or any
practice in the churches at an early day, is no evidence at all that it
was received either from Christ or his Apostles_. The Scriptures are our
only guide. This you as Protestants admit, and by this you are precluded
from all recourse to ‘the _traditions_ of the first Christians,’ in
regard to infant baptism, or any thing else concerning the doctrines and
ordinances of our religion. So that it is nothing to you nor to me if
infant baptism had existed before Tertullian’s time. We have shown,
however, that so far from being a general practice before that time, it
then was for the first time proposed, and it required all the third and
most of the fourth to secure it any considerable foothold in the
churches, and that it did not become _established_ as an ecclesiastical
institution till the time of Augustine, in the early part of the fifth
century.
“It is true, as you may read in almost every writer on baptism, that
_Cyprian_, who was the successor of Tertullian in the church at
Carthage, received a letter from one Fidus, of whom nothing more is
known than that he wrote such a letter, asking how soon after birth it
might be proper to baptize. This was about forty years after Tertullian
wrote to Quintilla on the subject. Cyprian, it seems, did not feel quite
able to decide this momentous question, and called a council of
sixty-seven of his brother bishops of North Africa, who gave it as their
opinion that the ‘Grace of God should not be withheld from any son of
man, and that a child might be kissed with the kiss of charity _as a
brother, so soon as it is born_.’ This was in the year A.D. 257. It was
this same Cyprian who gave it as his opinion that water poured about a
person in bed (if he was sick and could not be immersed) would answer in
the place of baptism.”
“What was the effect of this decree of the African Council?”
“It seems to have had none. It is likely that it relieved the doubts of
Fidus; and infants were probably baptized in Africa to some limited
extent, but we have no record of any such baptisms. One hundred years
after this, Dr. Wall, the Pedobaptist historian, says complaints were
common that mothers could not be prevailed on to put their children into
the water at baptism. More than one hundred and twenty years after this,
Gregory, the Bishop of Constantinople, gave his opinion on the baptism
of infants or babes. These are his words: ‘But some say, what is your
opinion of infants who are not capable of judging either of the grace of
baptism or of the damage sustained by the want of it? Shall we baptize
them too? By all means, _if there be any apparent danger_; for it were
better they were sanctified without knowing it, than that they should
die without being sealed and initiated. As for _others_, I give my
opinion, that when they are three years of age or thereabouts (for then
they are able to hear and answer some of the mystical words; and
although they do not fully understand, they may receive impressions),
they may be _sanctified, both soul and body_, by the great mystery of
initiation.’
“But neither the decree of Cyprian’s sixty-seven bishops, nor the
opinion of Gregory himself, seem to have convinced the common people;
for in the next generation—at the beginning of the fifth century—the
priests and bishops who had espoused the new practice, which they
doubtless found profitable to their own purses, if not to the souls of
the little water-made Christians, found it needful to meet in solemn
council, and pass another decree, declaring that ‘Infants ought to be
baptized for the remission of sins, and that all who denied this
doctrine should be accursed.’
“Previous to this, great multitudes of believers, grieved and disgusted
with the corruptions and innovations which had crept into the so-called
Catholic Church, had withdrawn, and formed separate societies of their
own. From the arguments and the decrees which were designed to bring
these _heretics_ back into the bosom of Mother Church, it appears that
they were, in some particulars, very much like our Baptist Churches.
“The Catholic bishop, Augustin, represents them as asking, ‘What good
the sacrament of Christ’s baptism could do unconscious infants?’
“And to this question he replies, ‘That in regard to that matter, it is
piously and truly believed that the faith of those by whom the child is
presented, profits the child’ But as this reasoning did not prove
sufficiently convincing, another council was called, which decreed,
‘That it was their will that whosoever denies that little children by
baptism are freed from perdition and eternally saved, that they be
accursed.’ And this decision being affirmed and sanctioned by the Pope,
in 417, we may from that time consider infant baptism and baptismal
salvation as established doctrines of that body which historians are
accustomed to call the Church. But the decree, with its appended curse,
proved insufficient to convince the stubborn-hearted Baptists. They
refused to baptize their children, and they disowned the baptism of the
Catholics by refusing to receive them into their communities till they
had been baptized by themselves. This the Catholics called rebaptism, or
Anabaptism; hence the name of Anabaptists, which has been applied to us
almost to the present day. For these great crimes, the Catholics turned
against them the strong arm of the secular power. They procured a decree
of the Emperor, that not only those who rebaptized, but those who
received the ordinance at their hands, should be put to death. ‘By this
law,’ says Gibbon, ‘three hundred bishops, and several thousand of the
inferior clergy, were torn from their churches, stripped of their
ecclesiastical possessions, and banished to the Islands.’ From this day
down to the present, in every country where Pedobaptists have had the
power, our brethren have been the subjects of bitter and unrelenting
persecution. We can trace them through the pages of history by the light
of the fires that consumed them, and by the rivers of blood which they
have shed in testimony of their faith. Millions and millions of these
slaughtered saints are standing now with those who were beheaded for the
testimony of Jesus; slain not by their pagan foes, but by their
so-called Christian brethren!—by people whom your writers call ‘the
Church,’ and whose history you record as the history of the Church!!!
“When this work of death commenced, they reproached Augustin (whom
historians call a _saint_) with the death of their pastors, and told him
that God would require at his hand the blood of these martyrs at the day
of judgment. ‘Martyrs!’ he replied. ‘I know nothing about your martyrs.
Martyrs indeed! Martyrs to the devil! There are no martyrs out of the
church.’ We have not time to trace their history through the coming
ages, under the different names which have been given them, as
Donatists, Novatianists, Cathari or Puritans, Paulicians, Henricans,
Petrobrusians, Mennonites, Albigenses, Waldenses, etc.; but let me
suggest, if you desire to pursue the subject further, that you read
Orchard’s History of the Foreign Baptists, which contains in a small
space an immense amount of information concerning these persecuted and
afflicted disciples of Jesus.”
“I do not think,” said Professor Jones, “that we need to spend further
time upon this point now. I confess, for my own part, I am more than
convinced. I only wonder that these facts are not more generally known.”
“They are public property,” replied Mr. Courtney, “and have long been
known to Baptists; but your Pedobaptist friends will not read them or
listen to them. And when we absolutely force them upon their attention,
they take it for granted there must be some mistake about it, or else
they would have heard them from their own ministers. But I agree with
you that we have spent time enough in our present conversation; and as
there is preaching at the court house to-night, suppose we adjourn to
meet again to-morrow.”
“I hope you will meet here,” said Mrs. Jones, “for I have yet one very
serious charge to offer against the Baptists.”
“Permit me, madam, to inquire what it is, that I may be better prepared
to meet it.”
“It is your _close communion_. I am almost willing to admit that
immersion is the only baptism, and that infants are not in the
Scriptures required to be baptized—though even about these points there
must be some mistake on your part, for our ministers are certainly as
learned and as pious as yours, and yet they have always represented the
facts as very different from the pictures you have drawn.”
“But you forget, Mrs. Jones, that it is by the testimony of _your own
historians_ and _your own ministers_ that I have established these
facts. I have scarcely quoted a single Baptist authority. The men who
say that there is no precept or example of infant baptism in the
Scriptures, are among the most learned and eminent of _your own_
writers. The men who say that the very meaning of the word baptize is to
immerse, and that it was immersion only which was for ages practiced by
the church, are such men as McKnight and Chalmers, among the most
eminent of _your own Doctors of Divinity_. The men who say that it is
_certain_ that infant baptism was not ordained by Christ or the
Apostles, and was not introduced until after the second century, are
such men as Neander, Coleman, and Kitto, among the most learned and
eminent of _your own ecclesiastical historians_ and _Biblical critics_.
Such men would not say such things unless the truth compelled them.”
“That is very strange, Mr. Courtney; but I can’t deny that it is true:
and I may be convinced that you are right in these things; but I am sure
I never can be reconciled to your practice of restricted communion.”
“Don’t be so certain of that, madam. I have no doubt I shall be able to
show you to-morrow that _you Presbyterians are just as much restricted
in your terms of communion as we are_. The only difference between us is
on the question, What is baptism? But it is now time to go to the
meeting.”
They found the house already filled, and the services had commenced when
they arrived. They had not been there long, when those who stood near
the door saw a horseman ride up and dismount. It was Mr. Percy. My
reader will remember that, after writing that letter to Theodosia, he
had gone to another county to attend the Circuit Court. He reached the
place on Sabbath morning, just before church time, and attended the
Presbyterian meeting. At any other time he would probably have made the
fatigue of his journey an excuse for remaining at his hotel; but he was
very unhappy that morning, and hoped in church to find some remission of
the feverish anxiety which preyed upon his mind. He could not feel
satisfied that he had done right in leaving off the investigation of the
subject of baptism himself, or in endeavoring to prevent Theodosia from
acting out her conscientious convictions of duty. He had wished a
hundred times, as he rode along, that he had never written that
unfortunate letter. Yet he never suspected for a moment the influence it
was destined to have upon his own matrimonial prospects. That Miss
Ernest loved him most devotedly he was well assured; nor did the thought
ever enter his mind, that either this or any other event was likely to
break off their engagement, or even postpone their marriage. But when he
remembered the earnestness of heart with which she regarded every
question pertaining to religion, he felt that he must have occasioned
great distress to her; and he bitterly reproached himself that he had
permitted his selfishness so far to triumph over his affection.
He had at first congratulated himself that he had made to her such an
appeal as she _could not_ disregard, and consequently had secured the
object which he had in view; but on reflection, he began to feel that he
should esteem her more highly and love her more tenderly, if it should
prove true that her religious principles were so strong and her sense of
duty so predominant, that she would not listen even to the voice of
_love_ itself dissuading her from the path of right.
He began to hope that she would disregard his entreaties and do her
duty. He wished he could return in time to tell her that he would not
for the world put any restraint upon her conscience. He comforted
himself by the thought that, if his letter had any effect, it would only
be to postpone her decision until his return, when he determined to take
all difficulties out of her way.
When he took his seat in the church, his heart and his mind were in
another place. Could he but know what had been her decision—where she
was sitting then—what she was doing! He rose when the congregation stood
up to pray—he sat down when the preacher said amen, as did the others,
but he heard no sentence of the prayer. They sang an old familiar hymn
to an air which he had learned in childhood; he joined in the singing,
but when it was done he could not have told what was the tune or the
words. When the preacher announced his text, he started as from a dream,
and as he repeated it: “To him who knoweth to do good and doeth it not,
to him it is sin”—the Spirit at once applied it to his heart. He felt
that this was precisely the case with himself. He had examined the
meaning of Christ’s commandment. He was satisfied that he had not obeyed
it. He knew that it was his duty to do what Christ commanded, but he had
deliberately and willfully refused to do it; and what was worse, he had
exerted all the influence which he possessed to induce Miss Ernest to do
the same.
The main thoughts of the sermon were, First, that men are always
inclined to find excuses for their wickedness.
Second, there is no excuse more frequently offered, or more implicitly
relied upon, than ignorance.
Third, that although ignorance, when involuntary and _unavoidable_, may
be plead in mitigation of one’s guilt, as Jesus taught us when he said
that he who knew not his master’s will and did it not, should be beaten
with _few_ stripes—yet those who might learn their duty were _doubly_
guilty. Their ignorance itself was sin; and those who knew and
acknowledged their duty, and yet neglected or refused to do it, had not
even the shadow of an excuse. Whatever doubt there might exist in any
other case, their sinfulness was certain, and their guilt was fearful.
As the preacher dwelt upon this last thought, an expression of agony
quivered in the muscles of Mr. Percy’s face, and the tears started in
his eyes. He rested his head on the pew before him, and covered his face
to avoid the observation of those about him; and as soon as the
congregation was dismissed, hastened to his room at the hotel, and
passed the rest of the day in most distressful reflections on his past
conduct and present condition. Not this one sin alone, but hundreds of
others, nay, more than he could count, came rushing back upon his
memory. A lifetime of sin—sin against light, sin against love, sin
against deep and plain convictions of duty; sins of his early boyhood,
sins of his heyday youth, sins of mature manhood, all crowded around him
and seemed to call down Heaven’s vengeance on his head. He tried to
pray, like the poor publican, God be merciful to me a _sinner_. But his
prayer seemed to be reflected back by the ceiling of the room. It had no
messenger to bear it up to the throne. He felt that he was lost. His sin
had found him out, and he had no Saviour. His hopes were all gone. He
knew not what to do. Night came, and he sat there on the side of the
bed, without a light, feeling that the darkness of the night was light
in comparison with the darkness in his heart.
His agony of mind was so great that he could not think. He could only
feel. He would kneel down to pray, but he had no words to utter. He
could only groan in his spirit. He would rise up again and sit upon the
side of the bed. Thus the night wore away. At last he threw himself upon
the bed, and from mere exhaustion fell asleep. When he awoke in the
morning, his head was throbbing with pain, and his eyes were red and
swollen. He excused himself from breakfast, and had a cup of coffee sent
to his room. He felt that he could not attend to the business of the
court, and sent for a lawyer of his acquaintance, made over to him a
minute of his cases, with instructions to have them postponed if
possible, and if not to appear for him. He then tried to consider what
he ought to do in regard to his own condition as a sinner before God. It
was not so much the fear of punishment that distressed him, as an
_overwhelming sense of guilt_! “Oh!” he exclaimed, again and again,
“what a sinner! What a sinner I have been! What a sinner I am! Can there
be mercy for a wretch like me! God have mercy on me a sinner.”
After some hours he ordered his horse, and started for home. He passed
another night of horror on the way—excusing himself for his speedy
return, by saying what was very true, “that he did not feel well.”
The second day, as he rode along, he found his heart going out more
frequently in prayer, not so much for _pardon_ as for _deliverance_ from
sin. He loathed himself for his vileness, and longed to be delivered
from the power of sin. And he began to think of Jesus more and more as a
Saviour from _sin_ rather than from _hell_, until at length he found
that he was looking to Jesus to _save him_ from _his_ sins. “Yes,” said
he, “he came to save sinners—not the righteous, but sinners. And his
name was called Jesus, because he saves his people _from their sins_.
Will he not save me? But I am not one of his people. I am an outcast. I
have betrayed him in the house of his friends. Can he, will he save
_me_?” And the Spirit said, “Come unto me all ye that are weary and
heavy laden, and I will give you rest. And _whosoever_ cometh I will in
nowise cast out.” “Surely,” he replied, “that includes _my_ case.
Blessed Jesus, save me. Save or I perish. Save, I cannot save myself.
Save, I give myself into thy hands. Yes, I take thee for my Saviour.
Thou wilt save me. Thou dost save me. Oh, precious, precious Saviour!
Thou art indeed the Lord of my heart. Show me what thou wilt have me to
do. I have nothing but sin, but thou hast all needful righteousness to
plead for me. Be my intercessor. Be my Redeemer. Yes, thou wilt
forgive—thou hast already pardoned. I trust my soul to thee, and I
believe that thou art able and willing to keep it to the day of
redemption.”
His distress was gone. He had found hope—he had found peace—he had found
joy. He rode on home with a glad heart. What now had become of all his
lofty aspirations for worldly fame and wealth. What did he care now for
position in society, for professional reputation, for all indeed that
but three days ago enlisted his desires. He counted them as less than
vanity and nothing. One only question now filled all his heart, and that
was “Lord, what wilt _Thou_ have me to do?”
He could understand now what Theodosia had meant when she talked so much
about obedience to the Master’s will. It was with these feelings he rode
into the town, ignorant of all that had transpired since he left—knowing
nothing of the effect which his letter had produced on Theodosia;
nothing of her baptism; nothing of the meeting which was in progress. He
saw the light in the court house, and heard the singing—dismounted and
approached the door—and learned that it was a Baptist meeting. Without
further question he went in and sat down.
The sermon was on the importance of Christians professing Christ before
the world. And at its close, the announcement was made that the church
was ready to receive applications for membership—and candidates for
admission were requested to take a designated seat while the brethren
sang a hymn. They had scarcely commenced the second stanza when
Professor Jones and Mr. Percy came from opposite sides of the room.
Neither had been conscious that the other was in the house. Both their
hearts were full, and who will wonder that when they met they rushed
into each others’ arms, and wept upon each others’ necks!
Need I tell how Theodosia drew her heavy veil down over her face, and
how her heart beat audibly while she listened for the words that should
explain this mystery?
She was not kept long in suspense, Mr. Percy was the first to relate his
experience of grace. He dated his conversion only a few hours back.
“This very day,” said he, “for the first time I have been enabled to
realize the pardon of my sins. I fancied some years ago that I had been
converted, but am now convinced that I was self-deceived.” He then began
at his early conviction of sin, and related the history of his
connection with the Presbyterians—his recent examination of the subject
of baptism. Though fully convinced that immersion was the only baptism,
he had felt that it would be ruinous to his worldly prospects to change
his church connections; and he told how it was that his sin had found
him out in a distant town—what agony of mind he had endured for the past
two days, and how it pleased God to speak peace to his soul as he was
coming home. That he had seen the light in the court house, and learning
that it was a Baptist meeting, had come in with the determination to ask
for baptism.
I need not detain the reader by any account of the experience of grace
which was related by Professor Jones. Nor need I attempt to describe the
emotions of Theodosia, her mother, or Mrs. Jones, while this scene was
passing. I will simply say that Uncle Jones and Mr. Percy, with some
half a dozen others, were received, and Sabbath morning set as the time
for their baptism.
THE TENTH NIGHT’S STUDY.
Which is mainly devoted to the subject of “Close Communion.”
Tenth Night’s Study.
In accordance with the request expressed by Mrs. Jones, as her visitors
were about to leave on the previous night, our company of inquirers met
at her house to hear her complaint about close communion. This subject
had now assumed a new and touching interest to her. It had associated
itself with her domestic affections. She felt that henceforth, in a very
important sense, she must be separated from her husband; and though from
the moment that she saw he had _decided_ upon being baptized, she had,
from courtesy and affection, refrained from any further argument to
_him_—yet her heart was full of reasons, which she longed for an
opportunity to pour out upon some one else, showing that, in this
particular at least, the Baptists were the most bigoted, selfish,
conceited, and uncharitable people that ever deserved the name of
Christians. Mrs. Ernest, though she had entertained the same opinion
until her daughter and her brother had become associated with the people
she had formerly so much condemned, yet was now almost ready to admit
that they might be right in this, as well as other things. In truth, she
was like a great multitude of both sexes in all our religious bodies,
who never have any opinion of their own upon any disputed point of faith
or practice. She had always had full faith in the learning and the piety
of her brother Jones and her pastor Johnson. What _they_ said was true,
she never thought of doubting. They were, to her, infallible as the
priest to a Catholic. What had she to do with these knotty questions?
Had not her pastor spent his life in studying them? and was it not in
part for this that he was paid, to do the people’s thinking for them,
and tell them what was the true faith and practice of a Gospel church?
But now, when her _brother_ doubted the pastor’s word, and even
Theodosia had gotten the better of him in the argument, her confidence
was gone; her mind was all unsettled; she knew not where to look for
truth; she must have time to choose anew her spiritual guide; and in
doing this, she was likely to be influenced more by her feelings than
her judgment.
Mr. Courtney found Mrs. Ernest and Theodosia waiting for him when he
called to accompany them to the Professor’s residence; and even Edwin
had been diligently studying his lessons, that he might gain time to go
with them and listen to the discussion. On their arrival, they found
that the Rev. Dr. McNought, the President of the college, had called to
take a friendly cup of tea; and, at the urgent request of both the
Professor and Mrs. Jones, he consented to remain and take part in the
conversation. Uncle Jones stepped out for a moment, and Mrs. Jones
introduced the subject by saying:
“Don’t you think it hard, Doctor, that my husband has placed himself in
a position that will forever prevent us from communing together at the
table of the Lord? I declare it almost breaks my heart when I think of
it.”
“It does indeed seem hard, madam; but we all know that Professor Jones
has only acted in accordance with the requirements of his conscience. I
do not think that any one who knows him can find any reason to blame him
for any thing but too great haste in making his decision. If he had
taken more time, and examined the whole subject with proper care, he
must have come to different conclusions.”
“No, doctor, Mr. Jones did not act hastily. This is no new subject to
him. He has been laboring over it for months, and I feared how it would
end. He has examined it with the most careful attention, and decided
with cool and prayerful deliberation. He knows every inch of the ground
over which he has passed, and can give you a reason for every change of
opinion that he has made. He is not a man lightly to change his faith on
any superficial investigation; and that is what so much troubles me. I
know when his mind is once decided, and he has openly expressed his
conviction, he is immovable as the Rock of Gibraltar. I have no hope of
ever winning him back. His path and mine are henceforth separate: I am a
Presbyterian, he is a Baptist. He will abandon his professorship; he
will engage in the work of the ministry. I shall go and listen to his
preaching; I shall be present when he administers the Supper of the
Lord, and neither I nor his sister here—who loves him more than any one
in the world except myself—neither of us can partake of the elements at
the table where our own brother and husband is presiding. He will be
bound to reject us from the company of those whom he will call the
saints of God, as though we were not Christians, and never expected to
commune together in heaven.”
“As for me,” said Mrs. Ernest, “if brother ever becomes the pastor of a
church, and thinks that I ought to be baptized, I shall let him baptize
me. I suspect he is as competent to judge of the meaning of the
Scripture as Mr. Johnson, if he only took the same pains to study into
it. But I don’t see why the Baptists can’t act like other Christians.
_We_ always invite them to _our_ table—why should they not invite us to
theirs? Don’t we all trust in the same Saviour; and are we not all
seeking the same heaven? I wonder if they expect there will be two
tables up there, and they can sit down by themselves in the very
presence of Jesus, and send every one who has not been under the water
to another apartment? No, no! we will all commune together there, and we
ought all to commune together here. I don’t blame brother or Theodosia
for becoming Baptists, for I know they were compelled to do it by a
sense of duty; but I do blame the Baptists for being so bigoted and
uncharitable, and acting as though they thought nobody was good enough
for heaven but themselves; and I don’t see as they are so much better
than other people, after all.”
“You place the matter on the right ground,” replied Dr. McNought. “Every
man ought to be fully persuaded in his own mind, and then ought to be at
liberty to act out his own convictions of duty. We demand this for
ourselves, we ought to concede it to others. If any one feels that he
cannot obey Christ without being immersed, let him be immersed; but let
him not say, that because _his_ conscience requires immersion, that
therefore _every person’s_ must. I profess to love the Lord Jesus, and I
desire sincerely and honestly, if I know my own heart, to obey all his
commandments. But while Professor Jones has become fully convinced that
the Lord commanded us to be immersed after we believe, I am as fully
convinced that he commanded us to be sprinkled while we were yet
unconscious babes. My conscience, therefore, is satisfied; and if I
should be immersed, I should commit a grievous sin, for I would be doing
that in professed obedience to Christ which Christ has never commanded.
Now, Baptists have no right to ask me to violate my conscience, nor (I
say it with all due respect to you, Mr. Courtney) have they any right to
exclude me from the table of the Lord for not doing what I regard as a
sin.”
“You set the subject in a very strong light,” replied Mr. Courtney, “and
I am glad you do so. I wish to meet this difficulty fairly and candidly.
I seek no evasion, and am willing to submit our faith and our practice,
in this and every other particular, to the sternest and strictest
Scriptural tests. If we are wrong, no people in the world should sooner
hasten to get right than we, who have no law but the Scripture, and no
leader but Christ. And now, let us look at your argument. You say that a
church has no Scriptural right to exclude from her communion any person
who professes to love the Lord Jesus, and desires to obey all his
commandments, whether he regards those commandments in the same light
which the church does or not. A great many professed Christians seem to
see the subject in the same light. They say it is the _Lord’s_ table;
and because it is his, and not ours, the church in which the table is
set has no right to exclude from it any who profess to love the Lord,
and who desire to approach it.”
“Certainly,” said Mrs. Jones; “I do not see how any body of Christians
could ever have felt disposed to arrogate to themselves the authority to
determine who shall and who shall not approach the table of the Lord, or
upon what authority they can possibly rest so presumptuous a claim.”
“Doubtless, then,” mildly replied Mr. Courtney, “you will think it is a
great exhibition of personal self-confidence, or of Baptist assumption
on my part, when I assure you that I can prove, not only to my own
satisfaction, but also to yours and Dr. McNought’s—
“I. That every church of Christ has the exclusive right within itself to
decide who shall be participants in its communion.
“II. That all Pedobaptists, including Presbyterians, are accustomed to
recognize and exercise this right, on the same general principles that
Baptists do; and,
“III. That _no church can refuse or neglect to exercise that right
without being guilty of open rebellion against the positive requirements
of the law of Christ_.”
“I don’t know,” replied she, “what you may be able to do about the first
and the last of your three propositions; but I am sure you can’t make me
believe that Presbyterians and Methodists either believe in or practice
close communion like the Baptists. You and my husband have proved so
many strange things from the Scriptures since he has been engaged in
this investigation, that I won’t deny that you can prove any thing you
say you can, which depends upon _them_. But the faith and practice of
our church, I am sure, I know as much about as you do. And I know we
have never set any such restrictions around our table, as you habitually
set around yours. We have always regarded it as the Lord’s table, and we
constantly invite to our communion all who profess to love the name of
Jesus.”
“You almost tempt me, madam, to prove my second proposition first, and
show you at once that you Presbyterians are as close in your communion
as we are, and that the only difference between us is that you are more
open in your baptism.”
“I wish you would, and I think then I could better attend to your proof
on the other points.”
“Very well—since you desire it, we will take this up first, and then
return to the other. If I did not misunderstand you, it is your opinion
that all who profess to love the Lord Jesus should be invited to his
table, and that the practice of your people is in accordance with this
rule.”
“Certainly; it is the Lord’s table and not ours. And we do not undertake
to decide on the fitness of those who approach it. Let every one judge
for himself. ‘To his own master he standeth or falleth;’ whoever thinks
he has the love of Jesus in his heart, let him come.”
“Then of course you invite the Roman Catholic, whom you regard as a
follower and subject of anti-Christ, the man of sin—the great enemy and
persecutor of the church, of whom it was foretold that ‘he should wear
out the saints of the Most High.’ He will assure you that although he
loves, and reverences, and worships the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, he
also loves her Son and the holy child Jesus. And he will assure you,
moreover, that his conscience absolutely demands of him to be the very
creature of the Pope, which he is known to be. If he should renounce his
faith and practice, he feels that he would be guilty of a mortal sin. Of
course, Doctor, you would not exclude him ‘for not doing what he would
regard as sin.’
“Then there is the Unitarian. He claims that he loves Christ and
delights in his service, although he denies his divinity, and regards
him only as a creature. He is sincere and honest in his faith; of course
you make him welcome. He says he could not worship Christ without being
guilty of idolatry; and no idolater hath any part in the kingdom of
heaven. You surely will not reject him for not doing what he _honestly_
believes would place his soul in danger of destruction.
“And near him stands a Universalist. You invite him, of course, for he
says he loves Christ better than any of us, and has more reason to love
him. We can only love him as the Saviour of those who believe and
repent, but _he_ can love him as the Saviour of all the human race; and
he will assure you that he would regard it as dishonorable to God to
condemn a soul to endless punishment for the few sins he might be able
to commit in this life, that he would feel himself fearfully guilty
should he venture in his heart to believe that he will do it. And I am
sure, Doctor, you could not, according to the rule you laid down awhile
ago, exclude him for not believing what, in his opinion, he could not
believe without sin.
“There are also many people in the world who come to your meetings, who
have never connected themselves with any religious society, who,
nevertheless, make great professions at times of their love to Jesus.
They thank their God that they are so much better than many members of
your church. Not only will they assure you that they love God better
than you or I, but can boast they have always loved him, and never have
done much, if any thing, for which they think he can complain of them.
Upon what ground can you exclude these: since, according to your rule,
it is the _Lord’s_ table, and every one is entitled to judge for himself
of his fitness to approach it? How dare you say that each and all of
these shall not come and fill your table every time the cloth is spread,
mixing with yourselves as every way your equals, and showing to the
world that they are in all respects equally entitled to this great and
distinctive privilege of the church of Jesus Christ?”
“Oh, no, Mr. Courtney, I did not mean that. I don’t want to commune with
Roman Catholics, or Unitarians, or Universalists, or non-professors; and
we Presbyterians never have been accustomed to invite to our table any
such people. All I meant to say was, that we invite _all those whom we
have reason to regard as converted men or women, and who have made an
open profession of their faith in Christ._”
“Ah, madam, that is quite a different thing from inviting _all who
profess_ to love the Lord of the table. It seems then, after all, that
_you_, not _they_, are to be the judge of their fitness. But will Dr.
McNought agree to this new rule? He says, if I did not misunderstand
him, ‘No church has any right or ought to have any inclination to
exclude any one from the table of the Lord who _professes_ to love the
Lord Jesus, and to desire to obey all his commandments, and who is
_sincere_ and honest in his conviction that his faith and practice is
correct, _however widely it may differ from that of the church_ whose
communion he seeks.’”
“Perhaps I expressed myself a little too loosely,” replied the Doctor.
“I did not intend to say that the church is to have _no discretion_ in
the matter; but only that she has no right to exclude any whom she
recognizes _as genuine and evangelical Christians_. Now, you Baptists do
not pretend to doubt (at least you often say so) that Presbyterians and
Methodists, and members of other evangelical churches, are just as good
Christians as you are yourselves, and every way as worthy and well
qualified for the table of the Lord as you are, saving only that we have
not been under the water; and as we are prevented from going under the
water by our conscientious regard to what we understand to be the
commandments of Christ, you have no right and ought to have no
disposition to exclude us on that account.”
“Never mind the Baptists just now, Doctor. We will come to them
presently. We are now investigating the practice of Presbyterians, and
the principles on which it rests, and we have progressed thus far. _You
do not_, it seems, leave it for every one to determine for _himself_ in
regard to his fitness to commune. You _do not_ invite all who may _think
themselves_ worthy and well qualified, but those only whom _you_ have
reason to think are converted or regenerated men—and the testimony on
which you regard them as such is the fact that they are members in good
standing in any of these churches which require evidence of conversion
as a prerequisite to membership.”
“Precisely so, sir,” replied the Doctor. “I could not have described our
practice more perfectly myself.”
“But there is another thing which you Presbyterians require besides
evidence of conversion, and which you will no more dispense with than
you will with that.”
“And what is that, pray?” asked Mrs. Jones. “You seem to know more about
us than we do ourselves.”
“You shall yourself answer your own question, madam. When one not
previously a member of any religious denomination is converted from his
sins, repents and believes, and gives good evidence that he has become a
new creature in Christ Jesus, do you at once, without any further
preliminaries, invite him to your communion table?”
“Certainly we do, as soon as he has made a public profession and united
with the church. We could not, of course, invite one who was not a
_member_ of any church.”
“Very good; but in what manner does he become a member? Is he not
received in the ordinance of baptism?”
“Of course—if he has not been baptized in infancy he must be baptized.
Baptism is the door of entrance into the church, and no one can be a
member who has not been baptized.”
“Perhaps, Doctor, you may be more familiar with the practice of your
denomination than Mrs. Jones. Do you agree with her that no one is
recognized as a full member till he has been baptized; or do you invite
him at once to your table as soon as you are satisfied that he is a
converted man?”
“Our rules in regard to this matter,” replied the Doctor, “are clearly
laid down on pages 504 and 505 of the Confession of Faith, ‘ON THE
ADMISSION OF PERSONS TO SEALING ORDINANCES’:
“‘Children born within the pale of the visible church, and dedicated to
God in baptism, are under the inspection and government of the church,
and are to be taught to read and repeat the Catechism, the Apostles’
Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. They are to be taught to pray, to abhor
sin, to fear God, and to obey the Lord Jesus Christ; and when they come
to years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and
steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord’s body,
they ought to be informed that it is their duty and their privilege to
come to the Lord’s Supper.’ ‘When unbaptized persons apply for admission
into the church, they shall, in ordinary cases, after giving
satisfaction with respect to their knowledge and piety, make a public
profession of their faith in the presence of the congregation; and
thereupon be baptized.’”
“And on page 456,” replied Mr. Courtney, “you will find this rule—‘All
baptized persons are members of the church, are under its care, and
subject to its government and discipline; and when they have arrived at
years of discretion, _they are bound to perform all the duties of church
members_.’
“It would seem, therefore, that although you are, according to your
‘Confession of Faith,’ at liberty to dispense with any public profession
of faith in the case of those baptized in infancy, you are not to
dispense with baptism. All the baptized, whether converted or
unconverted, are, when they come to years of discretion, ‘bound to
perform all the duties of church members.’ And if the celebration of the
Holy Supper is one of the duties of church members, they are bound to
commune; but no one whom _you_ regard as _unbaptized_, however pious he
may be, can be permitted to approach your table, any more than any one
whom _we_ regard as unbaptized can come to ours. What then is the
difference between your practice and ours? In what respect is your
communion more open than ours? Simply and only in this: That you,
according to page 456 of your Confession of Faith, admit the unreligious
and unconverted, who have never even professed to be the subjects of
regenerating grace, provided they were baptized in their infancy—while
we admit none who have not made for themselves a credible profession of
their repentance and faith. I will, however, do you the justice to say,
that many of your churches in this country so far repudiate your own
rules, as not to invite or require the baptized children to come to the
table of the Lord till they have given evidence of conversion; and these
bodies and ourselves, therefore, stand on precisely the same ground—that
is, we each require evidence of both conversion and baptism, before we
admit or invite any to our communion.”
“But yet,” said Mrs. Ernest, “we can’t stand upon the same ground, for
_we_ always invite you, and you never invite us.”
“The reason is not, madam, that we do not act upon the same principle,
but that we differ in regard to _what baptism is_, and consequently as
to who have been baptized. You consider all baptized who have been
sprinkled in infancy. We regard those only as baptized who have been
immersed on a profession of their faith. But you no more extend your
invitation to commune to those whom you consider unbaptized than _we_
do. Your _baptism_ reaches further than ours, but your invitation to
commune _never reaches beyond your baptism_. Do you not see, therefore,
that all our difference of opinion is simply about baptism, and not
about communion? Show us that the sprinkling of infants is Scriptural
baptism, and we can, and will at once extend our invitation to the
communion so as to embrace you all. But until you can show us that, you
surely cannot ask us to invite those whom we regard as unbaptized, while
you cannot invite those whom you regard as unbaptized?
“Except in case of the children of your own church members, you require
both conversion and baptism as prerequisites to communion. And for the
most part, in this country, though not in Europe, you repudiate your
Confession so far as to require it even of them. You refuse to commune
with Universalists, and Unitarians, and Roman Catholics, because,
although you think they have been baptized, you do not believe they have
experienced the regeneration of the Gospel. You refuse to commune with a
newly converted person, though satisfied that he is really born again,
till he has publicly professed his faith, and been _baptized_. It was on
this ground that Professor Moses Stuart, one of your ablest writers and
most learned men, said that if a pious member of the society of Quakers
or Friends should so far forsake his principles, as to desire to commune
with him at the table of the Lord, he must refuse unless he would be
first baptized.
“Precisely so it is with us. We also require evidence, both of
conversion and of baptism. We ask for neither more nor less than you do.
Are you not satisfied? or shall we spend further time upon this point?”
“I did not,” replied the Doctor, “need to be told that Presbyterians
require baptism as a prerequisite to communion. No one has ever doubted
it, so far as I have been informed. I am sure no one ever had any reason
to doubt it.”
“On what ground, then, do you complain of us so bitterly, since we
require nothing more than you do?”
“We do not complain of you for requiring _baptism_ as a necessary and
invariable prerequisite to communion, but for requiring _immersion_, and
thus setting up your judgment against that of the whole Christian world.
You will not only have baptism, but you must have _your own
baptism_—whereas, we receive that of all other denominations, including
yours. How then can you say that we stand on the same ground?”
“I do _not_ say that we stand on the same ground as regards _baptism_.
Here I know we differ as far as a few drops sprinkled upon the forehead
of an unconscious babe, differs from the plunging of a believing
Christian man or woman into a liquid grave. But in regard to communion,
we agree, at least, so far as this subject under discussion is
concerned. That is, we both require baptism as preparatory to a
Scriptural approach to the Lord’s Table. This much you freely admit. You
admit also, that no Presbyterian Church is accustomed to invite or
permit the approach of those to your communion whom _you_ regard as
_unbaptized_. You will admit, moreover, that you have somewhere, in what
you call ‘The Presbyterian Church,’ the power to exclude from your
communion such as you may deem unworthy. I need not, therefore, dwell
any longer on this point. You cannot deny that I have fully established
my second proposition, which was, as you will remember—_That Pedobaptist
churches, even Presbyterians, are accustomed, as well as Baptists, to
recognize and exercise the right to determine for themselves whom it is
proper and expedient to admit to their communion._ And I have proved,
also, that _you as well as we refuse to admit any one who has not, in
your opinion, been baptized_.
“So far we are perfectly agreed; but because you consider many persons
as baptized whom we regard as unbaptized, you can invite many whom we
must refuse. Here, then, is the gist of the whole dispute. Now, let me
ask you one question. Does not the Presbyterian Church claim and
exercise the right to decide _for herself_ what baptism is, according to
her understanding of the Scriptures?”
“Certainly she does,” replied the Doctor, “and you may find her
decision, with the proof-texts on which it rests, recorded on page 146
of the Confession of Faith: ‘Dipping of the person into the water is not
necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or
sprinkling.’”
“Why then should you or any one complain if a _Baptist_ Church should
feel that she had equally the right to decide for herself according to
her understanding of the Scriptures, and should give her opinion and the
proof-texts on which it rests? And what if she should come to the
conclusion, that ‘dipping the person in the water is necessary,’ and
that baptism cannot be administered at all ‘by pouring,’ or ‘by
sprinkling?’ What then? Must she act as though she did not believe it?
Must she submit her judgment to yours, and receive as baptism, on your
recommendation, what she solemnly believes and declares is no baptism?
Yet this is what you so modestly require her to do, when you deny to her
the right to exclude from her communion the sprinkled and the poured-on
members of Pedobaptist societies. If sprinkling and pouring are not
baptism, then they have not been baptized; and if they have not been
baptized, then they are not Scripturally prepared for communion.”
“But how is it made so certain,” asked Mrs. Ernest, “that no one can be
permitted to commune who has not been baptized? I know it is the common
practice of the churches of all denominations, but I don’t remember any
express declaration of _Scripture_ on which it rests.”
“It is not necessary, madam, to have any express precept, when we have a
plain and unmistakable example. But in regard to this point, we have
what is equivalent to both.
“We have the often repeated command—Repent and be baptized, believe and
be baptized—showing that baptism was _at once_ to follow penitence and
faith, without any intervening act. Then we have the unvarying example,
many thousand times repeated, showing that this command was thus
understood and thus literally obeyed. They believed and were baptized.
Baptism instantly followed the profession of their faith, leaving no
time for the observance of any other rite between; and then we read,
Acts ii. 46, that after their baptism they continued ‘in breaking of
bread.’
“Moreover, the sacrament of the Supper is a _church ordinance_. It was
ordained to be observed by _the church_, assembled together in a church
capacity. And of course no one could participate in it but _church
members_. And no one has ever been regarded as a church member till he
had been baptized. This was the door of entrance, the initiatory rite by
which one was received among and united to the people of God, and so
became entitled to the privileges of the visible kingdom of Christ.
Hence the Apostle, in writing to the ancient churches, frequently
alluded to their baptism; always addressing them as baptized persons,
who had put on Christ in baptism; who had been buried with him by
baptism; who had been planted together with him by baptism; who had been
in a certain sense regenerated by baptism; and who were in some sort
saved by baptism. This is so evident that no sect or denomination have
ever considered the unbaptized as church members and communicants. The
open communion Baptists are, so far as I know, the first and the only
Christians who have advocated the giving of the communion to those whom
they regarded as unbaptized.
“That godly, learned man and excellent commentator Dr. Doddridge, author
of ‘The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul,’ and many other
excellent works, says: ‘It is certain that Christians in general have
always been spoken of as baptized persons by the most ancient Fathers,
and it is also certain, so far as our knowledge of primitive
Christianity extends, that no unbaptized person received the Lord’s
Supper.’—(_Miscellaneous Works_, p. 510.) Dr. Wall, the great champion
of Pedobaptism, says expressly: ‘No church ever gave the communion to
any persons before they were baptized.’ ‘Among all the absurdities that
ever were held, none ever maintained that any persons should partake of
the communion before they were baptized.’ Lord Chancellor King, of the
Church of England, in his work on the Church, says, page 196: ‘Baptism
was always precedent to the Lord’s Supper, and none ever received the
Eucharist till he had been baptized.’ And those who might have any doubt
about this, he refers to the testimony of Justin Martyr, who describes
the practice of the primitive churches in his famous ‘Apology,’
addressed to the Roman Emperor, about the year A. D. 138 or 139. You
will find a translation of so much of this memorable document as refers
to this subject, in one of your own historians, Rev. Lyman Coleman’s
Apostolical and Primitive Church, page 340. ‘After baptizing the
believer and making him one with us, we conduct him to the brethren, as
they are called, where they are assembled fervently to offer up their
common supplication for themselves, for him who has been illuminated,
and for all men everywhere, that we may live worthy of the truth which
we have learned, and be found to have kept the commandments, so that we
may be saved with an everlasting salvation. After prayer, we salute one
another with a kiss. After this, bread and a cup of wine and water are
brought to the president, which he takes, and offers up praise, etc.’”
“Oh, that is enough, Mr. Courtney. I did not want to know what Justin
Martyr, or Lord King, or Dr. Wall, or any body else said about it, but
only what was in the Scriptures. If I understand aright, you Baptists
claim that your faith and practice rests exclusively on them.”
“That is very true, Mrs. Ernest; but I thought it might be satisfactory
to you to know that the same Scriptures which have led us to require
baptism as an essential prerequisite to communion, have been equally
able to convince all our most learned and zealous opponents, so that in
whatever else we may be found to differ, we agree in this. A sect of the
Baptists themselves are; I believe, the first and only people who have
ever attempted to show from the Scriptures that the communion of the
church may be shared with the unbaptized; and they were led to this
evidently from their desire to be free from the reproach of close
communion. They could not deny that immersion was the only baptism, and
therefore they could not but regard their sprinkled brethren as
unbaptized, and they could only commune with them by denying that
baptism was an essential prerequisite to the Eucharist. But not even
Robert Hall, who was the leader, or at least, the ablest champion of his
sect, with all his vast learning and surpassing eloquence, could
persuade the Pedobaptists that _they_ ought to dispense with baptism in
_their_ communicants, though many of them and some Baptists profess to
have been convinced that _Baptists_ ought to dispense with it in regard
to those who wish to approach their table. But the great body of the
Baptist Churches still agree with their Pedobaptist brethren in
requiring baptism before communion, and we must continue to do so till
some one can find in the Scriptures some precept or example for
reversing the order so plainly established by Christ and the Apostles,
which places repentance and faith first, then baptism, and then the
breaking of bread and the other ordinances of the church of God.
“It is as evident as any thing can be, that if any Jew or Gentile had
professed his faith in Christ in the Apostles’ days, and yet had
neglected or refused to put on Christ in his holy ordinance of baptism,
he would never have been invited to the privileges of a church member.”
“Of course he would not have been,” replied the Doctor, “for there was
then no room at all for doubt about the nature or the subjects of
baptism. The Apostles had the act visibly set before their eyes by
Christ himself. And the people all knew what was intended when they were
commanded to be baptized. If any one refused or neglected to obey, it
was _prima facie_ evidence that he was no Christian, and consequently an
unfit subject for communion. It showed that he either did not believe or
was disobedient at heart. The early churches, therefore, were bound to
reject all who would not be baptized. But now the case is very
different. The mode of baptism has now, in many minds, become a matter
of great uncertainty. Some think it is one thing and some another; and
some think it any one of three things. Now, since good Christians may
thus, while they seek and intend to do right, yet fall into the wrong,
how can any church take it upon herself to decide that one of these
modes is right and all others are wrong, and so exclude all who do not
conform to her standard? for now a failure to conform is not, as in the
Apostles’ days, an evidence of an unbelieving or a rebellious spirit,
but only of a mistaken apprehension of duty, into which the most sincere
and pious Christian is liable to fall.”
“I acknowledge, Doctor, that this argument has a great deal of
plausibility about it. It is the best that can be offered in favor of
open communion, and has succeeded in imposing upon the minds of some
eminent Baptists. But now, if you will give me your candid attention for
a few minutes, I will show you _that it is utterly destitute of any
Scriptural foundation or logical force_.”
“You speak very confidently, sir, and I will gladly give you the
attention you require; but if you can do what you say, I will concede
that you are a master in logic—for I conceive it perfectly
unanswerable.”
“I know, Doctor, that it is the best and strongest argument which can be
made for open communion; and yet I am sure I can satisfy you that it
ought not to have the _very slightest weight_ in the decision of this
controversy—because it has not even the shadow of a foundation in the
Word of God on which to rest. But before I enter upon it further, I
will, with your consent, go back and take up the first general
proposition which I purposed to establish when we entered upon this
discussion, and that was, as you will recollect, _That every church of
Christ has the exclusive right within herself to decide who shall be
partakers of her communion_. We have seen already in what manner your
church and others are accustomed to exercise this right. It is simply
the right to determine who shall be entitled to the privileges of
membership—a right which must of necessity belong to every such
organization in order to preserve its purity or perpetuity.”
“I do not,” said the Doctor, “feel disposed to dispute with you about
this. If a Baptist church is a church of Christ, I am willing to grant
that within certain limits it is to judge of the qualifications of its
members and communicants.”
“What are the ‘limits,’ Doctor, to which you refer?”
“The requirements of the Scriptures. She is to require only such
qualifications as the Scriptures demand.”
“But who is to judge of what the Scriptures demand, Doctor, the church
or the applicants for her communion?”
“She must, of course, judge for herself. The Scripture is given for her
guidance. She must examine for herself, and be governed by her
understanding of its instructions. Those who are not of her membership
can have no right to dictate to her in the matter of their own
reception—that is self-evident.”
“But now, Doctor, what if she should, upon a careful examination of the
Scriptures come to the conclusion, as your church has done, that no one
is permitted to commune that has not been baptized?”
“Then as a matter of course she will do as we do—admit none who have not
been baptized.”
“But suppose she should come to the additional conclusion that
sprinkling and pouring are not baptism, and that, contrary to the
decision of your church, _dipping of the person in the water is
necessary_ to constitute a Scriptural baptism—what then?”
“Why, then I suppose she must admit none who have not been thus
‘dipped,’ for she cannot recognize any others as baptized.”
“Of course she must. That is self-evident. And now, Doctor, I trust you
see the fallacy of your boasted argument for open communion; for if
every church is to decide _for herself_ who shall commune, subject only
to the laws of Christ, and if _she_ is to be the interpreter and judge
of these laws, and should be led to determine that these laws demand
that every communicant _shall have been immersed_, what could she do for
those who had been only sprinkled or poured upon? Must she not reject
them, however good and pious they might be? They may be sincere and
honest—they may be intelligent and learned; but _they_ are not to decide
this question _for_ the church. Those without cannot dictate the terms
of communion to those who are within. The church must for herself
examine. For herself she must decide, and upon _her own_ decision she
must act. What if the nature of baptism _be_ the subject of doubt to
many good and holy men—she as a church has nothing to do with their
doubts, unless they are her own members. What if good and pious men,
seeking to go right, _do_ sometimes go wrong, she as a church is not to
forsake what _she_ thinks right, and go wrong too, merely to accommodate
them. On the contrary, she is to stand firmly, like a great rock in the
wilderness, a fixed and settled way-mark, which men may see afar off in
their wanderings, and by it be guided back into the old paths. If
others, like the mariner at sea without his chart and compass, wander to
and fro, being wafted about with every wind of doctrine—she is to stand
like the light-house, against whose base the winds and waves beat alike
in vain, standing ever erect, and sending far across the ocean of doubts
and uncertainties the calm and changeless light by which they may direct
their course into the destined haven.
“Now look at your argument again. In the days of the Apostles, every one
knew certainly what baptism was, and every church was bound to exclude
all who had not been baptized. But now, many good and pious people have
become doubtful what baptism is. Some think it one thing, and some
another; and _therefore_ no church of Jesus Christ ought to have any
opinion about it; and every one ought to be received who thinks
_himself_ baptized. The church has no right to decide even as to what
constitutes the very act by which men are admitted to her membership, or
as to who shall be permitted to enjoy the peculiar and distinctive
privileges of members. This must all be left to the good and pious,
_without her ranks_, to determine for her. If _they_ have doubts, she
must give up her right to determine for herself, and humbly receive
those who judge themselves to be worthy and well qualified, although she
may have no doubts at all. Do you not see, that if the principle on
which your argument rests be once admitted, it will destroy not only the
independence, but the very organization of the churches? The principle
is this—A Baptist Church has decided that certain prerequisites are
needful to her membership or communion; but there are certain persons,
out of her ranks, who think she ought not to require these
preliminaries, and demand the privileges of church members without
having complied with them. The church consents to their demand—admits
them on _their_ terms—abandons her own judgment, and repudiates her own
rules—does she not at once lose her distinctive character, and cease to
be a Baptist Church? Is she a church at all, when those without make
laws for her—decide questions of faith and practice for her, and
determine who shall take the place of members at her table, and by what
rules she shall exercise her discipline?—for if they determine that she
has no right to exclude a member for want of baptism, they can, of
course, with equal reason determine that she has no right to exclude any
one for any other cause.
“Look at your argument again. It takes it for granted, that because you
and some other good and pious men doubt about the nature of the act of
baptism, that therefore NO ONE _can arrive at any certainty_ in regard
to it; and therefore no church of Christ has any right to take any
decisive action in regard to it. If this be true in respect to baptism,
it is, of course, equally so in regard to other things; and the
necessary result will be, that no church has a right, in regard to _any_
subject, to hold opinions, and to _act_ upon them, if good and pious
people of other denominations chance to differ from them. Your argument,
if it is good for any thing at all, destroys all church independence and
all church sovereignty, and makes it necessary for every church of
Christ to go out and ask those who are not of her membership, and have
no special interest in her affairs, what she may believe, and teach, and
do; and this in regard to matters which are to her of the most vital
importance, involving her very existence, by determining for her who she
shall admit to the privileges of membership.”
“Oh, no, Mr. Courtney, I did not intend to intimate that the church had
no right to deny _membership_ to those who might sincerely and honestly
differ from her on matters about which good men have not been able to
agree. But we were speaking of only _occasional communion_.”
“The principle is the same, Doctor, whether the communion be occasional
or continual. If he may commune once, why not twice? If twice, why not a
dozen times—and, indeed, every time the table is spread? And if he may,
of right, continually enjoy this peculiar and distinctive privilege of
church membership, why not every other privilege? If we have no right to
exclude you from communing with us _occasionally_, we have none to
exclude you _perpetually_—and if we have no right to exclude _you_, who
are not a member of our church, we could not, of course, exclude one who
is a member for a similar cause. Your right to determine for a church
the terms of its communion, includes the right to determine for it any
other principle of faith or practice. If you may dictate who shall
commune _once_, you may with equal propriety dictate who shall commune
all the time. And yet, you modestly require us, because forsooth you and
some other good and pious men are doubtful about the nature of baptism,
to yield _our_ convictions to _your_ doubts, and assure us that _we have
no right_ to decide for ourselves upon the nature of the very act of
initiation into our membership—forgetting, of course, that your own
church has positively decided for herself, page 146 of the Confession,
where she declares that ‘dipping of the person in water is _not_
necessary;’ and on page 431 (chap. vii. of Directory), where she
absolutely requires the minister to ‘baptize the child with water, by
pouring or sprinkling it on the face of the child, without adding any
other ceremony.’ Presbyterians can decide for _themselves_ what baptism
is; so can Methodists; so can Lutherans; so can Episcopalians; so can
Roman Catholics; so can every body else who will decide that it is
sprinkling or pouring. But if the Baptists claim the same privilege,
they are counted guilty of the most unheard-of presumption, and all the
Pedobaptist world desires to know by what authority they venture, like
other churches, to think for themselves, investigate for themselves, and
come to their own conclusions; or, if they must think, and investigate,
and decide, yet you demand to know how they can dare to carry out their
convictions in their practice.”
“Oh, no, Mr. Courtney, we do not,” said Mrs. Jones, “object to your
_deciding for yourselves_. It is to the nature of your decision that we
object. If you had decided, like all the rest of the Christian world,
that baptism was sprinkling or pouring, or that it was of little
consequence which way it was done, no one could object to your exercise
of the abstract right to decide for yourselves. But we _do_ think it is
evidence of either bigotry or self-conceit, when you set up your
opinions against the whole religious world.”
“Your idea of church independence, then, is simply this: Every Baptist
church has a full and perfect right to think and decide for herself on
all matters of faith and practice, provided she will always think and
decide just as your church does.
“But, Doctor, I have another objection to your argument, which makes me
wonder how it could ever for a single moment have imposed upon any
thinking Baptist—and that is, that it assumes, and takes for granted as
the very basis on which it rests, _that no one now can certainly know
what the act of baptism was_. In the days of the Apostles, you say,
there could not be any doubt about this, and therefore all who would not
be baptized, must of necessity have been excluded; but now it is so very
uncertain, that good men, meaning to go right, may yet go wrong, and
must not on that account be excluded. Let us look at it again in this
light. The Apostles knew what baptism was, for they had _seen_ the
Saviour himself baptized. The early churches knew, for they had _seen_
the Apostles baptize according to the pattern which Jesus showed in
Jordan. But we who live in these ends of the earth, are entirely
dependent for our information on the _written Word of_ _God_. The Holy
Spirit of Inspiration attempted to convey to us in writing such an
account of the organization of a church, and the ordinances of Christ’s
visible kingdom, that we might continue them to the end of time; but he
made such bungling work of it, that it is now absolutely impossible to
find out what he meant. We can neither know _who_ were the persons to be
initiated, nor by what act they are to be brought in.
“It is true, that he commanded people first to _believe_ and then to be
baptized. It is true, that he never, in a single instance, commanded any
one to be baptized _who had not believed_. And that there is not in the
record a _single case_ in which any but a professed believer ever was
baptized, nor is there a single allusion, direct or indirect, to the
baptism of an unconscious babe. And yet men say, that no one now can
certainly determine that he did not command, and does not now require,
that little infants who cannot believe or perform any act of intelligent
worship, shall be baptized, and thus made members of his churches.
“True, his people are always spoken of as a renewed and regenerated
people; as a holy and peculiar people, zealous of good works. The
churches of the Scriptures were addressed as active, intelligent, and
pious people. And we know, from sad and frequent observation, that the
baptism of an infant does not regenerate it or make it any holier than
it was before. We know that baptized children do not, on account of
their baptism, grow up servers of God and of his laws, yet no one now
can tell that Christ did not require these unconverted children of wrath
and heirs of hell, to be brought into his church and counted among its
members.
“And then as regards the act of initiation, which the Scriptures call
baptism, your argument takes for granted that nobody can now tell what
it was. True, the very word itself declares that it was immersion, if we
should read it as we do in any other book. No scholar ever dreamed of
its meaning to sprinkle or to pour, in any book except the Bible, nor in
any part of the Bible but the New Testament, nor in any place in the New
Testament where it does not refer to the ordinance. Everywhere else its
signification is sufficiently plain. When Josephus, writing in the same
language, and about the same time with the Evangelists, speaks of a
youth being baptized in a lake till he was drowned, no scholar ever
doubted that the lad was _dipped_. When he speaks of a ship being
baptized in the sea, no one ever ventured to doubt that he meant to say
it was _sunk_. No one ever doubted what Hippocrates means when he speaks
of the surgeon baptizing his probe into a wound. No one doubts what
Homer means when he speaks of the blacksmith baptizing a huge pole axe
in water to harden the steel. Those who are engaged in teaching our
young men a knowledge of the Greek language, never have any difficulty
in deciding about the meaning of this word in any of the poets, or
philosophers, or historians of Greece. The Lexicons of the language all
agree in giving ‘_to dip_,’ ‘_to plunge_,’ as at least its primary and
most common signification; and no one of them gives to sprinkle or to
pour—and yet you say, no one can tell for certain that this word means
_to dip_, and not to sprinkle or to pour.
“It is true, according to the testimony of Dr. Barnes, that this word is
used in the New Testament in the place of the Hebrew word ‘_tabal_.’ And
Professor Stuart, one of your own ablest scholars, expressly says, that
this word _tabal_ always means ‘_to dip_.’ It is true that in the
fifteen places where Dr. Barnes says it occurs in the Old Testament, it
is translated ‘_dip_’ or ‘_plunge_,’ in every place but one, and there
it is ‘_dyed_,’ which supposed a previous act of dipping, yet no one can
know that it does not mean to sprinkle or to pour.
“It is true, that your most eminent Biblical scholars, as Stuart, Kitto,
Chalmers, and McKnight, agree that it meant immerse, and state expressly
that immersion was the act which was performed in the first churches;
and yet you say, no one can certainly know what it was which Christ
commanded, and the church must now require.
“It is true, the Holy Spirit, as if to obviate the very possibility of
any misunderstanding, makes frequent and varied _allusions_ to it in the
Word, speaking of it as a burial, a bath, and the like. True, he has
gone into particulars, so far as to explain that it was done in the
‘rivers,’ and places where there was ‘much water:’ and that they went
down into the water to do it, and came up out of the water after it was
done; and yet we can’t know any thing about what it was.
“True, the history of the early churches, written by the sprinklers
themselves, as the Magdeburg Centuriators, Mosheim and Neander, clearly
shows that, in the language of the _London Quarterly_, devoted to the
interests of the Church of England, ‘There can be no question that the
original form of baptism—the very meaning of the word—was complete
immersion, and that for at least four centuries any other form was
either unknown or regarded as an exceptional, almost a monstrous case.’
“True, we can show from ancient rituals and church canons, that for more
than thirteen hundred years it was the only act recognized as baptism,
except in cases of alarming sickness.
“True, we have the most unexceptionable records, made by the sprinklers
themselves, showing the very time and manner of the change from
immersion to sprinkling, and the very decree of the Pope, on whose
authority it was done; and yet you take for granted that no Baptist
Church now can tell for certain which it was that Christ commanded. And
on this ground you demand as a right that she shall give to those who
have submitted to the Pope’s ordinance of sprinkling, under the false
impression that it was baptism, the same church privileges that she
offers to those who have entered into Christ’s visible kingdom through
the door which he appointed.
“If _you_ have any doubts about the nature of baptism or the subjects of
baptism, you may plead them for what they are worth before his bar to
whom we all must give account; but you must not expect Baptist Churches
to participate in them, or to act as though it were to them a matter
about which there was even the slightest uncertainty. If there are any
two things which they are satisfied are clearly and definitely set forth
in the Word of God, they are, that believers are the only persons
commanded to be baptized, and that those commanded to be baptized are
commanded to be immersed. They have therefore not even the shadow of a
doubt that you are unbaptized, and if baptism is a Scriptural
prerequisite, as you yourselves believe and teach, then you are not
prepared and cannot claim communion at their hands, unless you undertake
to decide for them whom they shall consider as baptized.”
“Oh, we are willing to acknowledge,” replied Mrs. Jones, “that we cannot
demand it as a matter of _right_. But the _courtesy_, Mr. Courtney. What
we may not demand as a right, we surely may claim on the ground of
Christian courtesy and kindness—I had almost said upon the ground of
common politeness. And now I ask you seriously to say if you do not
think that you Baptists are selfish and discourteous, to say the least,
in your refusal to invite any but immersed believers to sit down with
you? You admit that others are just as good Christians as yourselves, do
you not?”
“Certainly; we do not refuse because you are not pious, but because _you
have not been baptized_. And you as well as we believe that the Master
does not permit _all Christians_, but only all Christians who are
members of a visible church, and who have been baptized. You never
invite a person to your communion merely because you consider him a
converted man and a good Christian. You wait till he has joined the
church, and been baptized.”
“But we think,” said Mrs. Jones, “that we have been baptized. You will
grant that we are as sincere and honest in our opinions as you are in
yours. The great majority of the Christian world think _our_ opinion
better founded than yours: would it not, therefore, be proper and
becoming in you to show so much respect to the decision of more than
half of Christendom, and so much Christian liberality to those who
conscientiously differ from you, as to extend your invitation to them,
not of right, but purely out of courtesy and politeness?”
“That can never be properly called Christian courtesy, madam, which asks
for the sacrifice of Christian principle—and I am quite as willing to
meet the demands of open communion on this ground as on the other. But
before we enter into the argument, I would like to go back and call up
the third proposition, which I stated at the beginning of this
discussion, and that is—_That no church can either neglect or refuse to
exercise the right which has been given her by her Head, to preserve the
purity of her communion, without being guilty of open rebellion against
the positive requirements of the law of Christ._
“We have already seen that every church possesses this right, and it is
plain that the _duty_ to exercise it follows from its possession.
_Somebody_ must decide who shall be communicants; if not, there is no
bar between the church and the world. If every one who chooses may not
come, who shall decide who may? We answer, the church herself.”
“By what rule?”
“By the law of Christ, as laid down in his word.”
“May she not neglect or refuse to decide for herself, and leave it to
those without to come or not to come, as _they_ may think best?”.
“No; for God has constituted _her_ the guardian of his ordinances, which
he has placed within her gates.”
“But may she not reverse his order, and give communion first, and then
baptism?”
“No; she must, of course, be governed by _his law_.”
“May she not dispense with baptism altogether?”
“Certainly not, if _his law_ requires it.”
“May she not treat all those as baptized who _think themselves_
baptized?”
“No; she is to be governed by _his Word as she understands it_, and not
as it may be understood by _those without her ranks_. She is to examine
and decide for herself. She is to recognize and treat as baptized those
only whom she believes to have actually been baptized according to the
Scripture model. She is not the lawgiver, but simply the executor of the
laws of Christ. She is not at liberty to set them aside for any whims of
her own. Nor is she at liberty to enforce one part and not another. If,
therefore, _he requires_ baptism as a prerequisite to communion, she
_dare_ not in any case refuse or neglect to do so also. She _must_ see
his rules carried out, or she becomes unfaithful to her trust, and a
rebel to her Lord.
“If you have any doubt that each church _is_ constituted thus by Christ
the guardian of her own purity, and of the sanctity of his ordinances as
administered within her doors, I refer you to Romans xiv. 5, and 2
Thess. iii. 6, in which the power of the church to determine whom they
will receive, and the duty of the church to withdraw from every one who
walked disorderly, is distinctly recognized. But both the right and the
imperious obligation for its constant, faithful, and impartial exercise,
follows of necessity from the simple fact, that if the church does not
herself exclude the unprepared and the unworthy, there is no one to do
it; and it cannot be done at all.
“I am now ready to answer your question about the Christian courtesy of
refusing to invite the unbaptized to our communion. Permit me to put it
in proper form for you, and let us see how it will sound. We will
suppose it to be communion day at the Baptist church, and that your
church in a body comes to our door, and asks admission to our table—not
as a matter of right, but on the ground of Christian courtesy. You say
to us, very affectionately and kindly—Dear brethren in Christ, we are
fully persuaded that no unbaptized person, according to the laws of our
Redeemer, should ever be permitted to approach his table. _We_ never
permit any to come to it in _our_ church whom _we_ do not believe to
have been baptized. We could not do it without sinning against God. We
know very well, brethren, that _you act upon the same rule_. You agree
with us that it would be very wrong and sinful to permit any to approach
_your_ table whom you do not think have been baptized. We know, also,
that you believe that we have _not_ been baptized, and consequently that
you _cannot permit us to approach without doing what you would regard as
an act of open and deliberate rebellion against the laws of Christ_. But
we regard you all as Christian gentlemen and ladies, and quite familiar
with the laws of _politeness_ and Christian _courtesy_, and it must be
very evident to you that these laws require you to invite us to your
communion. You surely will not be so _impolite_ as to refuse us.”
“Oh, Mr. Courtney, that is too bad! Surely you have no right to look
upon us in such a light as that!”
“I am well aware, madam, that your people have not been accustomed to
see in this light your claims that we should invite you to our
communion. You are so accustomed to think of _yourselves as baptized_,
that you cannot fully realize the fact that others should think
differently. But thus the case must always appear to the mind of any
well informed Baptist. Nor is this by any means the worst of it.
“It is always and everywhere considered an act of great discourtesy to
ask one to do any thing which it is well known he will regard as a moral
wrong, though it should be asked of him only as a private individual,
and in his personal capacity. But the discourtesy is much greater when
you ask him, as a public man, in his official capacity, and in direct
and open opposition to his _avowed_ and _publicly acknowledged_
sentiments, to do what not only you know he would consider wrong, but
what all the world knows, or might know, he would so regard; what he has
again and again _publicly declared_ that he _could not do_ without a
grievous disregard of his conscientious convictions of right. To ask,
for instance, of a Son of Temperance, whom you _know_ is pledged not to
drink intoxicating liquors; whom you _know_ feels that he is under
peculiar and solemn obligations not to drink; yet to ask him not merely
to disregard the obligation, which _you_ know, and which the world
knows, that he recognizes as binding upon his conscience; but to ask him
to do it _publicly and officially as a Son of_ _Temperance_, in the
Division room, would be something such an act of discourtesy, though
much less flagrant than it is to ask a Baptist, as a Baptist, in his
public capacity as a church member, to disregard his obligations to his
Saviour, by which the purity of the church and the sanctity of the
ordinances are to be preserved.”
“Oh, dear, no! Please, Mr. Courtney, don’t think so hardly of us. I am
sure none of our ministers or members ever intended any thing of the
sort when they invited you to our communion, or complained that you did
not invite us to yours. We never thought about its being a matter of
_conscience_ with you.”
“And why should you not have thought of it, when we have preached it in
the pulpit, and proclaimed it through the press, and repeated it
continually in private conversation? No one _need_ be ignorant of the
ground on which Baptists stand in regard to this question. Their
sentiments have been long and plainly before the world. There is no one
who has any occasion to complain of them, who does not know, or might
not know, that _they cannot dispense with what they conscientiously
regard_ as Christian baptism; and that on _this_ account, and not from
any impoliteness or discourtesy, they are debarred from inter-communion
with sprinkled Christians.
“But I have not done with this question of courtesy. I want our
Pedobaptist friends to see precisely where they stand. After you have
asked us to disregard the most sacred obligations, to repudiate our
conscientious convictions of duty, and as a church, in our assembled and
official capacity, to refuse obedience to what you well know we all
regard as the imperative law of Christ, and to perform an act which you
well know we earnestly believe he has forbidden; when we respectfully
decline to do it, and kindly give you our reasons, you set up a great
and senseless cry of bigotry, of selfishness, of ignorance, and (will
you pardon me for saying it?) =of christian discourtesy=; as though it
were more discourteous for us firmly to resist all your solicitations to
disregard our Master’s Word, than it is for you, who profess like us to
love him, to ask us to do it, or complain of us for not doing it.”
“But we do not ask you to do what we think wrong.”
“No, you only ask us to do what _you know WE think wrong_, and then
abuse us because we dare not do it. But let it pass. I should think,
Doctor, you would find some serious, if not insuperable difficulties in
your plan of inter-communion with other denominations, over whose
discipline you have no control.”
“How so?”
“Let me explain. The peculiar and distinctive privilege of a church
member in good standing in your church, is the liberty of approach to
the Lord’s table. When you exclude the unworthy, they can no longer be
permitted to sit down with you at this sacred feast. Now suppose you
exclude a member to-day for heresy in doctrine, or irregularity in
practice, and he goes to-morrow and unites with some other denomination,
can he not, according to your principles, come right back, and claim a
seat at your table as the member of another denomination, although you
have just driven him away as a member of your own?”
“That might possibly happen; but I do not think we have ever been much
troubled with cases of that sort.”
“That is because your open communion is held in theory, but seldom
reduced to practice. If there were, in fact, that inter-communion
between you and Baptists, which many of you profess so much to desire, I
can conceive that it might happen very often, to the utter destruction
of any effective discipline in both bodies. Let us see. You require of
all your communicants who have children, that they bring them to the
church for baptism, do you not?”
“Certainly; it is the solemn duty of every Christian parent to dedicate
his offspring to God in this holy ordinance at his earliest
convenience.”
“Very good. Now suppose some one of them should take a fancy to ask you
for the _text_ on which this requirement is based. You might, as you
very well know, search all the New Testament, from Matthew to
Revelation, and you could not produce a solitary precept or example. You
would try to satisfy him with a wordy jargon about the covenant of
circumcision, etc. But he might reply, Jewish children were
_circumcised_ at eight days old, because God commanded it to be done. If
Christian children are to be _baptized_, you can show where he commanded
that.”
“You will say—No, but a command was not necessary; they were to be
baptized as a matter of course.
“Very well, then. Of course it _was done_, and you can show me at least
_one case_ among the thousands of ‘both men and women,’ in which there
was one little child. But you can’t find it. And he begins to doubt the
propriety of performing as an ordinance of Christ, what Christ did not
command. He cannot be persuaded to bring up the little ones into the
church. You exhort him and reason with him in vain; and you are obliged
at last to exclude him. I have read of such a case. You exclude him, and
he comes to us, and we receive him. Now he holds the same opinions, and
is guilty of the same practices. But though you could not commune with
him as a member of _your own church_, because he was guilty of the
_heinous sin_ of denying infant baptism, you will _welcome_ him back the
very next Sabbath as a Baptist. You urge him to sit down to the same
table from which you have just now formally expelled him. And I suppose,
if he should decline to accept, you would henceforth abuse him as
narrow-minded, selfish, bigoted, and intolerant Baptist, who thought
himself too good to commune with other Christians.
“The same thing might happen to us, and this furnishes an additional
reason _why we cannot_ commune with other denominations. I have said we
could not, because you were in our view _unbaptized_; and that is of
itself an unanswerable and all-sufficient reason, if there were no
other. But there is another growing out of this matter of church
discipline. Let us suppose a case for illustration. A minister in our
church has imbibed the idea that the sprinkling ceremony, which you
borrowed from the Roman Catholics, is valid baptism, and insists upon
introducing it into our churches. We would regard it as a great wrong.
We would, for the peace and purity of our communion, at once expel him,
and deny him the privileges of the church. He goes to you, and you
receive him gladly, and the very next day he comes back and claims, as a
member of your church, privileges which we had just now formally denied
him as a member of _our own_. Do you not see that this rule, carried out
in actual practice, must necessarily destroy the force of all attempts
at church discipline?”
“But how do Baptists now avoid that difficulty among themselves?”
“Very easily and simply. The right to our communion never extends beyond
the reach of our discipline.”
“Then how can members of one Baptist Church claim a seat at the table of
another; for, if I understand your church polity, every one of your
churches is an independent body.”
“They _cannot_ claim it as a _right_, and our invitation to commune is
extended by courtesy only to those whose faith and practice is so like
our own, that no person could be a member in good standing with them who
would not stand equally well with us.
“The rule adopted by Mr. Wesley (Discipline, see. 5th), and which is
founded alike in Scriptural principles and common sense, is the same in
substance as that which regulates our practice. That is, ‘no person
shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper among us, who is guilty of any
practice for which we would exclude a member of our church.’ This rule
you see at once compels us to deny all who teach and practice sprinkling
for baptism, and all who engage in what we regard as the sinful though
solemn mockery of baptizing unconscious infants, or any others who have
not made a personal and credible profession of repentance and faith,
according to the plain requirements of the Word of God, which _always
and everywhere_ puts repentance and faith before baptism, as it puts
baptism before communion. We are bound to this course by that solemn and
most impressive injunction of the Apostles, 2 Thess. iii. 6—‘Now we
command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you
withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and _not
after the tradition which ye received from us_.’”
“Y declare, Mr. Courtney,” said Mrs. Jones, “I had no idea that you
Baptists had so good and satisfactory reasons for your singular
exclusiveness; and I promise you now that I will never complain of you
again. In fact, if I ever become a Baptist, I shall be a close communion
Baptist.”
“I do not see,” said Mrs. Ernest, “how any one can take the Scripture
for his guide, and be any thing else; and I have been thinking all the
time that there must be some good Bible reason for it, or else Theodosia
and her uncle would not have agreed to it—but now, when I come to think
of it, I have not heard either of them say a word on the subject.”
The reader will recollect, that at the beginning of this conversation
Professor Jones had gone out of the room, for some cause at that time
unexplained. He returned after a few minutes, but took no part in the
conversation, in with indeed he seemed to feel but very little interest.
Mrs. Jones had quickly noticed his abstracted manner, so different from
his ordinary behaviour; and had several times cast an uneasy glance into
his face, hoping to read there the cause. But she could only learn that
it was in some way connected with Theodosia, whom he loved with the
affection of a father. Each time she looked, his eye was resting with an
expression of the deepest pity upon his lovely niece, who took no more
part in the conversation than himself. In truth she had spoken very
little to any one since the appearance of Mr. Percy at the courthouse on
the preceding night. His relation of his experience of grace, and his
declaration of his desire to be baptized, had placed him in a new
relation to her. She did not know that he had then never seen her
letter—and once (but only for a moment) the thought intruded into her
heart that all this change had been made for _her_ sake, and not for
Christ’s. She repelled it, however, in the instant that it came, and all
day long had held herself ready to welcome him back to his place in her
heart as her betrothed, and felt that she could love him now with an
affection even deeper and more intense, higher and purer and holier than
that which with such agony of effort she had been trying to strangle in
her heart. She thought he would have come and spoken to her before she
left the meeting, but he did not seem to notice her presence there. She
was sure he would call in the morning—but dinner was on the table, and
he had not come. That letter of hers must have prevented; but surely
there was not in it any harsh expression, any single word of unkindness.
Did not her heart _ache_ with the very intensity of her love, while she
was writing it? And now she tried to recall it, sentence by sentence,
and word by word, to see if there was any thing there which she should
not have said.
The afternoon wore slowly away. She sat at the window where she could
see the door of his office, but it was never opened. She listened to
every foot fall on the pavement, but she heard not his familiar step.
Once the latch of the front door was moved, and she sprang from her
seat, and felt the blood crimson all her face and neck; but she sat down
in a moment, for she knew it was her brother Edwin. Mr. Courtney called
after supper. Mr. Percy had not come yet; but she hoped to meet him at
her uncle’s. He was not there—and her spirit retired within itself; and
she sat as mute, and almost as unconscious of what was passing around
her, as a marble statue.
When Uncle Jones went out, it was to see Dr. Woodruff, a cousin of Mr.
Percy, who was also his most devoted friend and confidant. He was to
have officiated as the bridegroom’s friend on the expected wedding-day,
and had just returned from Mr. Percy’s mother’s, where he had spent the
day with one whose earthly career seemed likely soon to close. He had
come in to break the melancholy tidings as best he could to Theodosia.
The facts, as he related them to Professor Jones, were briefly these:
The servant who waited on Mr. Percy’s office had gone there in the
morning, and had found the young man lying upon his face on the floor,
with Theodosia’s letter in his hand. When the servant entered he seemed
to be asleep. He aroused him, and raised him up; but his looks were so
wild, and his face was so pale and his words (rather muttered than
spoken) so strange and unnatural, that he placed him on the bed and ran
for his cousin, the doctor.
When Doctor Woodruff came, and read the letter, he understood how it had
been. Mr. Percy, from the time he wrote and sent that distressing letter
to Theodosia, in the previous week, had been in a state of most intense
mental excitement. Much of the time he had been suffering extreme agony
of mind. His physical powers had become greatly exhausted, and his
nervous system debilitated and excitable. He had gone from the meeting
in the courthouse (where he had so unexpectedly had an opportunity to
ask for Christian baptism) to his office. There he found Theodosia’s
letter. He had never till then conceived that his letter would have
occasioned such distress to her, or that it would have led her to such a
determination. Yet if he had been entirely self-collected, and his mind
had not been already exhausted by long continued over-excitement, the
shock which the reading of her reply now gave him, would have been
speedily followed by calmer thoughts, and an instant determination to
see her at once, confess his fault, ask her forgiveness, and set himself
right in her heart. But exhausted in body and excited in mind as he was,
the revulsion of feeling was too great to be endured. He read on till he
came to where she said, “When you return, I pray you to consider me but
as one dead. It will be better for us both.” The paper seemed to grow
black before his eyes. The room was suddenly darkened. He felt a
strange, dreamy calmness creep over his brain. He sunk down out of his
chair in a deep swoon, or fainting fit, upon the floor. He became
conscious after a time, but had not strength to rise; and subsided again
into a strange, unquiet sleep, mixed with half-waking dreams, in which
he saw a beauteous form, more like an angel than a being of the earth,
who came and raised him up, and looked into his eyes so sadly, so
reproachfully, and yet so tenderly, that he struggled to tell her how
his heart bled at the remembrance of the act which caused her so much
sorrow—but he could not speak. He strove to raise his hand and make some
sign to assure her that he loved her better for her firm adherence to
the truth, but the muscles would not obey the will. He could not move—he
could not speak—and she was gone. Oh, how deep and how long was the
darkness of that night! She was gone! He felt that she was lost to him
forever. The very light of his life was darkness now—and yet he waited
and watched for her return. Could she leave him thus? Would she not love
him still? Hark! he hears her footstep. The door opens. Some one touches
him. He starts from his slumber to greet her with some word of love, but
he sees only his servant, who is trying to remove him from the floor to
the bed. He stares at him with the strange gaze of incipient madness,
and bids him leave him to rest in peace. The doctor saw at once that a
long and fearful brain fever was the best that he could hope for; and
while his strength was yet comparatively undiminished, resolved to
remove him to his mother’s house, some two miles in the country. This
done, he prepared such remedies as his medical skill suggested, sat
down, and watched beside his bed till he was satisfied that there was no
immediate danger; and then, at his mother’s request, came in to explain
to Theodosia the reason why he had not called on her. He had thought
best to explain, as we have seen, to Uncle Jones, and leave him to make
it known to his niece.
The Professor had been so much occupied with this matter, that he
scarcely heard the discussion which was going on in his presence. He was
glad when a pause in the conversation showed that the parties engaged
had, for the present, at least, exhausted their ammunition, and were
prepared for a temporary truce, if not for a permanent peace. He turned
their attention to some other subject, and in a few minutes the Reverend
Doctor took his leave.
Uncle Jones walked home with Theodosia. They walked slowly; and when
Mrs. Ernest and Mr. Courtney had gotten some way before them, he broke
the silence by reminding her that she had not spoken a word all through
the evening; “and,” said he, “I will tell you why. You were distressed
that Mr. Percy had not called to see you since his return, and wondering
what could be the cause. Will it relieve your mind to tell you that he
is sick?”
“I will not deny to you, uncle, that such was the subject of my
thoughts. I hope he is not seriously unwell.”
“The doctor does not think him in any immediate danger, but fears it
will be long before he can resume his business.”
“Why, uncle, what can be the matter? I am sure I never saw him look
better than he did last night. Did you not notice the brightness of his
eye, and the freshness of his cheek, and how rich and mellow was his
voice while he was telling what God so wonderfully had done for his
soul?”
“I was myself too much engaged to observe him closely, but I can well
imagine that the unnatural flushing of his check, and the unusual
brilliancy of his eye, were but the tokens of that intense mental
excitement which preceded, if it did not produce, the fever from which
he is suffering now.”
They had reached the cottage door. Uncle Jones thought best not to go
into any further particulars, and returned to his home.
That night, if one had passed by the window of Theodosia’s room, he
might have heard many a sob, mingled with half-uttered prayers. Had she
known _all_ the truth, her sobs might have been louder; but her prayers
could hardly have been more earnest.
The messenger who went next day to inquire, returned to say that Mr.
Percy was no better; and so it was the next day—and the next. Doctor
Woodruff had called in a brother practitioner, but did not reveal to
him, nor even to Mr. Percy’s mother, the whole secret of his attack. The
letter which he found in his hand, he had considerately laid aside, to
be returned to him should he recover. Its existence was a professional
secret. He attributed his illness to the long and tiresome journey on
horseback through the sun, and to such excitement of mind as he had
himself publicly described before his strange attack.
On Saturday evening Mrs. Ernest received a line from Mrs. Percy, saying
that her son was growing daily worse and worse; and, strange to tell, he
had in his delirium conceived a singular fancy that Theodosia had ceased
to love him, and had even formally discarded him. This idea, she said,
was uppermost in all the wanderings of his mind, and evidently was
exerting a great influence upon the progress of his disease; and Doctor
Woodruff had suggested that if Theodosia could herself assure him of her
continued affection, it might have a soothing, and perhaps a healing
influence.
Mrs. Ernest handed the note to her daughter, with the remark, that in
consideration of their well-known betrothal, there could be no
impropriety in granting Mrs. Percy’s request.
“We will go to him at once, dear mother,” said Theodosia, when she had
read the note, with eyes full of tears “Even a brief delay may be of
fatal consequence.”
When they reached Mrs. Percy’s house, he had fallen into an unquiet
slumber, from which they did not seek to awaken him. They sat down in
the room, and conversed in a low tone about the nature of his disease,
and other matters which the circumstances suggested. Theodosia took but
little part in this conversation, except as a most eager listener. She
sat down near the head of the low couch on which he lay, but presently
arose, and, under pretence of shading the patient’s eyes, adjusted the
candle so that it should not shine upon her own. Oh, who can tell the
thoughts that then were thronging in her maiden heart! How changed he
was! How pale—how corpse-like was his cheek! How wasted was the thin,
emaciated hand, which lay outside the cover! How parched and feverish
the lips! How sunken the eyes! How would they look when he should open
them? Would he know her? Would he speak to her? What if he _now_ should
open his eyes and see me here?—and she almost unconsciously moved her
chair back out of his range of vision as she thought of it. His lips
moved: she reached the spoon in the tumbler of water upon the little
table, and moistened them. He opened his eyes wide; he looked her
steadily in the face; he glanced at her white dress; he looked in her
face again. She fancied that the expression of wonder on his face gave
place to a scarcely perceptible smile. But he did not speak; he did not
make any sign of recognition. She sat down again and wept.
“You must need rest, Mrs. Percy. You may go and sleep, and leave the
care of him to us to-night,” said Mrs. Ernest. “We will watch him as
tenderly as you could do yourself.”
Mrs. Percy laid down, and Theodosia withdrew to some distance from the
couch, and sat where she could see every change that passed upon his
face. The love which she had for a time endeavored to eradicate from out
her mind, had only, like the lofty oak when torn and wrenched by the
mighty storm, extended its roots more widely and deeply, and clasped
them more firmly round her heart; and now, when the cause which led her
to cast it off had been removed, she clung more ardently and devotedly
than ever to the hope that he would yet be hers. Again and again during
that long night, when she hastened to do some little act of kindness,
did he open his eyes and look at her with a kind of wondering tenderness
in his gaze; but yet he did not speak, nor was she sure that he
recognized her at all.
[Illustration: Theodosia nurses the sick Mr. Percy.]
He slept more quietly that night than he had yet done, and when the
doctor came next day, he whispered in his ear that a beautiful vision
had come to him in his dreams and looked at him so lovingly, that he was
ready to speak, and ask it whence it came, but feared his voice might
break the charm, and it would vanish from his sight.
“You must stay with us, my child,” said Mrs. Percy, “till my son gets
better. He talked of you continually until you came, but now it seems as
though your very presence in the house exerts a sort of magic influence
over him, for he is quiet, and does not so much as lisp your name. The
doctor says if you could but become his nurse, he may yet recover. Will
you not, my daughter?”
“If my mother thinks there would be no impropriety in my doing so.”
“Certainly, Theodosia, I think you ought to return and assist Mrs. Percy
in every way you can. But your uncle and I are going to be baptized
to-day, and you will not be willing to be absent from the meeting.”
This conversation took place in the hall, from which there was an open
door leading to the patient’s room. He heard Theodosia’s voice; he
thought he heard her name. He made some sound, which recalled his mother
to his side, and looking in her face with a more natural expression than
he had since his attack, he said:
“Mother, I thought I saw her spirit here last night, and just now I am
sure I heard her voice, and thought that some one called her name. Tell
me if she is here.”
“Would you like to see her, my son?”
“Oh, yes; I want to ask her to forgive me before I die.”
“You do not think you are going to die, my child!”
“I have strange feelings, mother. I do not know what death is, or how he
comes; but I am sure I have been very near the world of spirits.”
“Do you feel any alarm at the prospect of death?”
“My mind is very weak, mother. I scarcely feel or think at all. I have a
blessed Saviour: I remember that; and I will trust him, even though I
die. But tell me—did I hear her voice, or was it but a dream?”
“Try to compose yourself, my child. The doctor says that you must sleep
awhile this morning. If you wish to see Miss Ernest, I will send for
her.”
“Do you think she would come?”
“I know she would. So make yourself easy, and you shall see her when you
wake.”
On returning to her visitors, Mrs. Percy related this conversation, and
insisted that Theodosia must remain to be there when he awoke; and as
the young lady did not object, Mrs. Ernest went home without her. She
laid down on her arrival, and took a short nap, and then taking Edwin by
the hand, joined Uncle and Aunt Jones on their way to the Baptist
meeting.
When the usual invitation was given to those who desired membership with
the church to come forward and make their profession, Uncle Jones was
surprised and delighted to see both his wife and his sister go up and
ask admittance into the church of God. Neither of them had said a word
to him upon the subject, for though both had yielded to their
convictions of the truth, that immersion is the only baptism, some days
before, and both had been convinced that believers are the only
Scriptural subjects of baptism, they could neither of them overcome
their repulsion to the practice of close communion, or consent to sever
their connections with these to whom they had such strong attachments,
until the explanations of Mr. Courtney in their last conversation put it
beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Lord Jesus not only commanded
believers, and them only, to be immersed, but that he had also forbidden
all who had not believed and been immersed to approach his table, and
required of those who had in this way become, according to his order,
the members of his church, that they should carefully guard the purity
and the perpetuity of his ordinances, by permitting no one to partake
with them in the peculiar privileges of church members who had not, like
themselves, been made members according to the same Gospel order. This
difficulty removed, they were now ready to be baptized.
We need not detain you any longer, gentle reader, by describing to you
the baptism of these three, who, with several others, followed the
example of their Saviour, by going down into the water, and were buried
with him in the liquid grave. Nor can we now continue the history in
which you have come, we trust, to feel so great an interest that you
would gladly see the end. We have finished our ten nights’ study of
Scripture baptism. We have examined it in regard to its mode, its
subjects, and its results. We have endeavored to do it plainly and
candidly, but if we know our own hearts, we have tried to do it
kindly—and in the spirit of that “charity” which “rejoices in the
truth.”
We are grieved to leave our darling Theodosia in such distress. But she
must remain a little while in the valley of tears, until, by her own
sorrows, she has been taught how to sympathize with the sorrowful. He
was the wisest man of earth who said, “By the sadness of the countenance
the heart is made better.” She needs the discipline of grief to fit her
for the life of eminent usefulness which lies before her—and the history
of which will soon be given in another volume.
A DREAM,
Review Of N. L. Rice’s Notice of the Theodosia Ernest First Series.
By the Author of Theodosia.
PREFACE.
THE only attempted review or extended unfavorable notice of the first
volume of Theodosia Ernest, appeared in the St. Louis Presbyterian, from
the pen of its Editor, N. L. Rice, D.D. That notice is here given, and a
review of Mr. R’s singular statements reviewed in a dream—and also the
natural effect of such a treatment of the best arguments ever produced
by Presbyterians or Pedobaptists—the conversion of Pastor Johnson. We
regard this review, in connection with Mr. Rice’s notice, as the most
powerful argument in favor of Baptist positions.
J. R. GRAVES.
_Nashville_, 1857.
NOTICE OF THEODOSIA.
By N. L. Rice.
AS IT APPEARED IN THE ST. LOUIS PRESBYTERIAN.
If perseverance and ingenuity were evidences of religious truth, there
could no longer be a doubt that immersion is the only valid baptism.
Long and earnestly have the advocates of this doctrine labored to
sustain its claims. The pulpit, the newspaper, the tract, the book,
learned argument, and assertion, and ridicule, have all been laid under
requisition. Then the whole Bible must be translated anew to make it
sustain the Baptist sense. And now we have before us, by the kindness of
a friend, a _Baptist novel_, the title of which is “_Theodosia Ernest,
or the Heroine of Faith_.” The author has modestly concealed his name,
but the work is published by Graves, Marks & Ruthland, Nashville,
Tennessee. The book is really instructive and amusing. We purpose
briefly to notice a few of its peculiarities.
It displays throughout a consciousness of the weakness of the doctrine
it is intended to advocate. 1st. The title betrays this
consciousness—“The Heroine of Faith.” There is in every Christian’s
heart a strong sympathy with the struggles and conflicts of a genuine
faith, rising above the allurements and persecutions of a wicked world.
The author has thought it necessary to take advantage of this noble
sympathy. If he had adopted the more truthful title—“_The Heroine of
Immersion_”—the book would have fallen still-born from the press. There
is little that is either noble or romantic in the zeal of a professing
Christian, young or old, for a narrow sectarian dogma. The author
judged, merely, that the cause of immersion needs the advantage of a
title far nobler than itself.
The same conscious weakness shows itself in the choice of a _heroine_
instead of a _hero_, and of a heroine who is a highly cultivated,
sensitive young lady of eighteen. Who can help strongly sympathizing
with such a young lady, devotedly pious, evidently conscientious,
willing to sacrifice every thing for the truth, conducting an argument
against two or three men much older than herself? We forget the cause
and sympathize with the girl. We put double weight to her arguments, and
feel gratified at the perplexities into which her antagonists are
thrown. The author of the novel judged rightly that the cause of
immersion and anti-pedobaptism claims all this sympathy and more. If he
had been a hero, instead of a youthful heroine, his hearers would have
weighed his arguments, instead of being carried away with sympathy.
The cause needed even stronger sympathy; and, therefore, Miss Theodosia
Ernest is brought in conflict with the man to whom she was engaged to be
married—a cold-hearted, formal Presbyterian lover—whom she loves most
devotedly. He opposes her joining “the contemptible sect of
Baptists”—(we naturally sympathize with a person opposed). She, poor
girl, is thrown into a paroxysm of grief, sighs, weeps, and prays, and
resolves to break off the engagement, just for the pure love of
immersion! The reader feels his eyes filling with tears of sympathy for
the dear distressed creature who had also her mother in opposition, and
is almost ready to be immersed himself just to comfort her. Who would
have thought that a Baptist knew so well how much it was necessary to
excite the sympathies of his readers to prevent them seeing the
flimsiness of his arguments?
The necessities of immersion were even greater. Although Miss Theodosia
is singularly furnished with Baptist arguments, for one who has just
reason to doubt the validity of her baptism, Professor Courtney, an
accomplished scholar, is called to aid her. He, having been a
Presbyterian, and having examined the whole subject, is perfectly at
home in the discussion. He understands Greek, and he can read all the
learned authors on the subject. On the other side we have, first, Mr.
Percy, the gentleman engaged to Miss Theodosia, who is represented as
wholly ignorant of the subject; Rev. Mr. Johnson, the young lady’s
pastor, who is made to talk like an ignoramus and a simpleton; and
Professor Jones, the heroine’s uncle, who had confessedly never examined
the subject, and scarcely had sense enough to keep him out of the fire.
With such combatants on each side, immersion may lift its head in bold
defiance. We cannot help admiring the author’s clear perception of the
necessities of his cause. It was exceedingly proper that he should
select, as the advocates of Pedobaptism, such persons as Mr. Percy, who
“had never had a serious thought upon the question” (p. 13); Mr.
Johnson, who said, “I have never studied these controversies much”; and
“Uncle Jones,” who, though Professor of Languages, had considered it the
duty of his parents and their pastor to attend to his baptism, and “had
never inquired whether they did it illy or well” (p. 121). It is
precisely over such persons, as the author rightly judged, that Baptist
controvertists gain the victory. And yet we cannot but wonder that he
would so publicly disgrace his cause by selecting such ignoramuses as
the opponents of the learned Mr. Courtney!
The respective characters being thus selected, the advocates of
immersion are, of course, allowed to make bold assertions which are
utterly untrue, and to keep out of view the merits of the case, whilst
their ignorant and soft-headed opponents gape and wonder. Thus “the
heroine of faith” decides, as by intuition, that baptism is an act, and
that if immersion is baptism, sprinkling and pouring cannot be. Her
intellect is too lofty, and her perception too clear, to hesitate for a
moment to decide against forty-nine fiftieths of the wisest and best men
that have lived both in ancient and modern times. The author rightly
judged that this heroine ought to be very self-conceited. Mr. Percy is
made to admit, what every tolerable scholar knows to be untrue, that all
the lexicons sustain the immersionists. It suited the purpose of the
writer to keep out of view the declaration of the learned Baptist,
Carson, that “all the lexicons” were against them. “Professor Jones,”
poor simpleton, is made to express the opinion that immersion was first
introduced “by the Mad Men of Munster during the Reformation of Luther.”
He cannot tell, poor fellow, where he got the idea; but “perhaps he got
something of it from reading D’Aubigne’s History of the
Reformation—perhaps he received it by hearing something of the kind from
the pulpit.” And the accomplished Baptist, Mr. Courtney, has “seen and
heard such statements many times from various sources. They are often
recorded in Presbyterian and Methodist newspapers” (p. 160). And the
learned gentleman gravely goes to work to disprove this statement, which
was never made by any tolerably informed Presbyterian, or recorded in
any respectable Pedobaptist paper. The book abounds with such vile
misrepresentations.
The book is written with ingenuity—it was necessary that it should be.
It keeps out of view the facts and arguments on which Pedobaptists rely,
or caricatures them to make them appear ridiculous. It puts into their
mouths arguments they never use. It manufactures history to suit the
occasion. In a novel, all this can be done in such a way that the
uninformed reader will not readily detect it. We are gratified at
observing how distinctly the writer shows, first and last, that the
cause of immersion needs very peculiar advantage in order to sustain its
claims.
After all, since he was advocating a fiction, he is probably right in
adopting fiction as the means of its defence. The only way to find so
ignorant and stupid Presbyterians as Percy, Johnson, and Jones, is to
manufacture them for the occasion; and nowhere, but in the imagination
of a zealous immersionist, can such Presbyterian young ladies as
“Theodosia Ernest, the Heroine of Faith,” he found. The author could not
successfully assail real, living Presbyterians; and, therefore, being
resolved on battle and a victory, he manufactures a few to suit him, and
then chooses their weapons for them, and directs them how to use them,
so they will be sure not to hurt them. Brave man! Don Quixote was
scarcely his equal.
Verily, the cause of anti-Pedobaptism seems to be “on its last legs.” If
it cannot induce the Christian world to receive an immersionist Bible,
and if novels will not sustain it, what is it to do?
[Illustration: Pastor Johnson contemplates Dr. Rice’s article.]
CHAPTER I.
A DREAM.
I had a _dream_, but whether it was all a dream, let him who reads it
judge.
Methought in my dream that I was in Pastor: Johnson’s study. He had in
his hand the Presbyterian newspaper, called the Presbyterian of St.
Louis. He had just found the article of Doctor Rice on Theodosia. His
little gray eyes began to twinkle the moment they caught the caption, “A
BAPTIST NOVEL,” for, since his troubles with the young lady and her
uncle, he has devoured with great avidity every thing which he could
find against the Baptists. As he was reading, however, a heavy frown
began to gather on his brow, his lips were pressed together with
convulsive energy, and the paper shook with the tremulous excitement
which pervaded his whole body. He continued to read, however, until he
had finished the piece, and then, as if to assure himself that he had
not read amiss, he began at the caption and read it every word again.
When he had done, he folded the paper carefully, put it into the inside
pocket of his coat, looked into the fire for several seconds, then
nodded his head three times very significantly, not straight forward
with the chin toward his breast bone, but diagonally, with the chin
inclined toward the left shoulder, and the back of his head drawn toward
the right.
What this peculiar pantomime might signify, I was, in my dream, greatly
at a loss to determine, until he had gone into the room where his wife
was engaged in her domestic duties.
“Mrs. Johnson,” said he, “I desire that you will pack my carpet-bag. I
must make a journey to St. Louis, and to get home before the Sabbath
must start this morning.”
“Why, my dear, what in the world is the matter?”
“I want to go and see Doctor Rice, madam; I don’t like the way he talks
about me. He has had the audacity to call me a _fool_, madam; nay, more,
he has even declared that there is not so great a fool in our whole
denomination. It is too much, madam, for human nature to endure. I feel
it my duty to go and talk to him as a Christian brother; I want to tell
him to his face that I think he has done me great injustice, and, in
short, has treated me very badly.”
Mrs. Johnson seemed instinctively to understand that delay or
remonstrance was out of the question. She made at once the needful
arrangements, and her husband was gone.
Then I saw, in my dream, that he entered the room where the Reverend
Doctor was engaged in writing.
“I presume this is the Reverend Doctor Rice,” said he. “My name is
Johnson, sir; the Reverend Mr. Johnson, of ⸻, I felt it my duty, sir, to
come and see you about your paper of the ⸻”
“Ah, I am glad to see you, Mr. Johnson. Take a seat, sir; I hope you
have had a pleasant journey.”
“Why, yes, sir, reasonably so; but in fact I have a great dislike to
traveling, and nothing would have induced me to take the journey but a
conviction of duty. I felt it to be my duty, sir, to come and tell you
that I think you have treated me very badly, sir. And let me say, sir,
that you have done more to destroy my confidence and that of my
congregation, in the truthfulness of our positions on the Baptismal
question, than all the Baptist arguments I have ever heard.”:
“Why, my dear sir, what can you mean?”
Mr. Johnson pulled the paper before referred to out of his pocket, and
found the article on Theodosia.
“I suppose, sir,” said he, holding it up before the Doctor, “you will
not deny that you are the author of that?”
“Certainly not,” replied the Doctor, as he glanced rapidly down the
column like one who was familiar with the words. “I take credit to
myself, sir, as being the first, and, so far as I know, the only person
who has attempted to answer that peculiar book.”
“I have no objection,” replied Mr. Johnson, “to your answering the book.
In fact, no one could rejoice more than I to see it rightly answered,
but I want you to understand that you have done me and those who stood
with me in that discussion very great injustice. It was unkind, sir, it
was cruel in you to intimate that there was not in all the Presbyterian
denomination so great a fool as I, just because I had never carefully
examined the subject of baptism for myself, but trusted to Doctor Dwight
and Doctor Miller, and _our other Doctors of Divinity_ for my
information and my arguments. I have always had a great regard, sir, for
our Doctors of Divinity. I have supposed they must be pious, and
learned, and truthful men. I thought I could _rely_ upon any thing I had
learned from a _Presbyterian Doctor of Divinity_; I therefore took the
substance of their arguments, not venturing to employ a single one of my
own, and yet for doing this you count me as a simpleton and called me a
fool.”
“Ah, my dear brother Johnson, you must excuse me; I did not at first
understand precisely who you were, I begin to see it now. Let me assure
you, sir, that I heartily sympathize with you on the loss of so lovely a
member as Miss Theodosia, and so influential an Elder as her Uncle
Jones. I can easily understand, my dear sir, that you were deeply
wounded by that event, and still feel a little sore on the subject. But
you must not fall out with your friends on that account. _We must DO
SOMETHING to break the force of the arguments_ presented by the author
in his silly narrative of that transaction. We must either meet those
arguments with sober logic, or we must destroy their influence by
_ridicule_. I am sure when you have come to look at the matter calmly,
you will not only excuse but even approve what I have said.”
“What, sir! excuse and approve your calling me a _fool_, just because I
used no better arguments than had been furnished me by _our greatest
Doctors of Divinity_!”
“Ah, my dear brother, I see that you do not yet quite understand me. I
mean to say that, in order to destroy the influence of that silly
narrative, we must either fairly meet and logically confute the facts
and arguments by which Miss Theodosia and her uncle were convinced that
we are wrong and the Baptists are right, or else we must turn attention
from them by calling the book a ‘NOVEL,’ and laughing at the arguments
as though they were not worth answering. And now let me say to you in
confidence, that it was a great deal easier to insinuate that as a
‘_novel_’ it must be a work unfit for the pious to read, and ridicule
and laugh at the book, than to disprove its _facts_ or answer its
_arguments_. I trust, therefore, you will not take it too much to heart
if you come in for your share of the laugh, since you can’t help seeing
that if I had allowed your arguments and those of your friend, Professor
Jones, to be the best we have, our cause is at once and forever
irretrievably ruined; but by adroitly representing these as perfect
nonsense and foolishness, I make the impression on the minds of my
readers that we have some others of most tremendous power, which could
not possibly have failed to convince your opponents if you had only
known them and brought them forward.”
“But, sir,” replied Mr. Johnson, “I am sure I brought forward the very
best that I could find—I took those of our most eminent Doctors of
Divinity, living and dead, the present company only excepted. I would
like to know, sir, if any doctor in our church ever stood higher than
Timothy Dwight, D. D., and Samuel Miller, D. D., one the President of
Yale College, the other an honored professor for many years in our
leading Theological Seminary, that at Princeton, New Jersey. I thought,
sir, I was safe from the charge of folly when I followed Dwight and
Miller, and consequently I took the same ground with these eminent men
to show Miss Theodosia that John did not baptize by immersion, but that
the Lord Jesus must have been _sprinkled_ on the bank of the river. Just
turn to volume four, page 349, of Dwight’s Divinity—‘It is,’ says he,
‘_incredible that the multitudes which John baptized in the wilderness
were immersed. It will not be mistrusted that this promiscuous assembly
were immersed naked. To have immersed them with their clothes on would
have exposed them to certain disease and death._’ Now, I did not care to
state it just in this way to Miss Theodosia, so I said that they could
not have been immersed on account of their great numbers, and for this I
had the authority of several Doctors of Divinity. Says Doctor Summers,
page 82 of his work on Baptism: ‘_It was not possible for him to baptize
the immense multitudes that came to his baptism by immersing them_,’ and
gives as a reason that his ministry lasted only a year or less, and in
that time ‘he baptized, perhaps, two or three millions.’ He thinks, as I
did, that they must have stood in rows along the bank, while the Baptist
sprinkled them either with or without hyssop, he don’t know which. So
also Doctor Eagleton, of Tennessee, gives the same explanation.
“The great Doctor Rice, I know, does not venture to say, like Summers
and Dwight, that it was ‘_impossible_’ and ‘_incredible_,’ but even he,
in his work on Baptism, page 116, founds an argument on the assumption
that ‘_it was not very probable_.’ And Doctor Miller, whom some will
consider a greater than Rice, expressly says, ‘_There is no evidence,
and I will venture to say, no probability, that John ever baptized by
immersion._’ Then, when I wished to prove that the Apostle did not
immerse any more than John had dome, what better could I do than follow
these great Doctors? Doctor Dwight expressly says, volume four, page
349: _‘It is impossible that those whom Peter and his companions
baptized on the day of Pentecost should have been immersed_,’ and gives
as reasons, first, that they had no suitable clothes; second, there was
not time enough, and he plainly intimates that there was not _water_
enough.
“So Doctor Summers says it was impossible, because there were no places
suitable for immersion, and besides it was impossible for the twelve to
baptize such a multitude in the six or eight hours that remained of the
day. So also Doctor Rice himself, page 120 of his work on Baptism, makes
in substance the very same argument. ‘Where,’ he exultingly asks, ‘did
the Apostles find sufficient _water_ for the immersion of so many?’ And
again, ‘The number—could the twelve Apostles baptize three thousand
persons in that day?’ And Doctor Miller, whom some will think a greater
even than Doctor Rice, declares, after dwelling upon these difficulties
of the case, ‘The man, therefore, who can believe that the three
thousand on the day of Pentecost were baptized by immersion, must have
great faith and a wonderful facility of accommodating his belief to his
wishes.’
“On these two points, therefore, you see I had the authority of our most
learned Doctors, including even Doctor N. L. Rice himself, and yet
Doctor Rice calls me a fool because I could not do better than them
all.”
“Oh, no; excuse me, my dear brother Johnson, but these were not the
points to which I particularly referred. I grant you had the substance
of our arguments on these points, but then that argument of yours based
upon with as the signification of the Greek preposition ‘_en_,’ you must
allow that it was rather simple in you to rest so much upon the phrase
‘_with water_.’”
“Not at all, sir; I can admit no such thing. The truth is, sir, this is
our great argument to the minds of the unlearned. It has more
plausibility in it than any other that I have ever read. And, sir, you
must let me tell you that though you may now call it silly and rate me
as a fool for using it, I did it on the authority of more than one of
our Doctors of Divinity. The Rev. Alexander Newton, D.D., in the ‘True
Baptist,’ makes a long and carefully elaborated argument, based upon
this rendering of the word. Dr. Summers, page 100, says expressly that
‘with’ is the proper meaning of the word ‘when found in connection with
baptism.’ And even the great Doctor Rice himself, in his debate with
Campbell, page 191, quoted Bloomfield to show that it was ‘with water’
and not in water that ‘_en hudati_’ should be rendered. How then can
Doctor Rice call me a fool for using his own argument, and that of other
doctors almost equal to himself?”
“I don’t deny that I alluded to it,” replied the doctor; “but I know too
well its fallacy to risk our cause upon it as you did. But it was not
for this so much as for your calling attention to those unguarded
admissions of Barnes, and Chalmers, and McKnight, that I thought, to say
the least, you were somewhat _indiscreet_.”
“Why, my dear sir, were not these all Presbyterians? Were they not all
DOCTORS OF DIVINITY? Could I not venture to direct an inquiring member
of the Presbyterian Church to our own Presbyterian Doctors of Divinity
for information? I know those men were counted among the wisest and the
best of all our doctors I took it for granted that they had studied the
subject before they wrote about it; I had, I am sure, no suspicion that
they would mislead those who trusted to their teaching.”
“But when you found which way they were leading your inquirers why did
you not contradict and oppose their testimony?”
“I did do my best,” replied Mr. Johnson, “but the truth is I am not,
like you, a _Doctor of Divinity_, and therefore I could not contradict
such men with as good a face as you can. If you had been there you might
have said, ‘My dear young friends, it is true that these learned men and
eminent masters in the Presbyterian Church do teach thus, but they are
utterly in error. They have stated what is entirely devoid of truth; you
may take _my_ word, but you cannot trust to theirs.’ But you, no more
than I, could have denied that Dr. Barnes admits baptize in Greek to be
the same as tabal in Hebrew, and that he says and proves that it in the
Scriptures signifies ‘_to dip_.’ You, no more than I, could have denied
that Chalmers and McKnight do both unquestionably give immersion as the
meaning of the word, and both agree that it was immersion that John and
the apostles employed. _That_ is too plain for argument. But them, as
you are a Doctor of Divinity, as well as they, and have been Moderator
of the General Assembly one year, as McKnight was for twenty, _you_
might have ventured to dispute their word—_you_ might have called in
question either their learning or their veracity, for if they told what
is not true it must have been either from ignorance or falsehood; but it
would not have done for a plain and simple pastor like myself to put
_my_ word against that of any _one_ of these great doctors, much less
against all three. I assure you, sir, that you Doctors of Divinity have
a great advantage over us common pastors in such a discussion as that.
When that learned Professor of Theology, Moses Stuart, says that all
critics and lexicographers of any note are agreed that immersion is the
common and primary meaning of the word baptism, and that the first
Christians so understood it, _you_ can simply say _it is no such thing_;
but people would expect me to prove it, and that very plainly, too,
before they would believe that Stuart lied about it, or that a man of
his eminent learning could be mistaken.
[Illustration: Pastor Johnson confronts Dr. Rice about his article.]
“When the learned MARTIN LUTHER says that ‘Baptism is a Greek word, and
signifies immersion,’ and that the etymology of the word seems to demand
that the person baptized ‘should be wholly immersed, and then
immediately drawn out of the water,’ as he does in his works, vol. 1, p.
386, _you_ could reply: ‘Doctor Martin Luther must be egregiously
mistaken about this, for I, Doctor N. L. Rice, have examined into the
matter, and find it is not true.’ When that ‘godly, learned man, JOHN
CALVIN,’ in his Institutes, b. iv., s. 15, says that ‘The word baptize
signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the practice
of the ancient church,’ _you_, as a Doctor of Divinity, can say: ‘Doctor
John Calvin was mistaken—this is not true.’ When that very learned and
eminent scholar, CASAUBON, says, ‘The manner of baptizing was to PLUNGE
or DIP them into the water, as even the word baptism plainly enough
shows,’ you have only to say: ‘Casaubon was either very ignorant of the
matter, or else he lied, for I, Doctor N. L. Rice, have found it was not
so.’
“When the learned BISHOP BOUSSET declares that ‘Baptize signifies to
plunge, as is admitted by all the world;’ when the famous critic Venema
says: ‘The word _baptizien_, to baptize, is nowhere used in the
Scripture for sprinkling;’ when the great scholar says, in commenting on
Matt. iii. 6: ‘Baptism consists in the immersion of the whole body in
water’—you can simply reply: ‘I know these learned foreigners say such
things, but Doctor N. L. Rice knows better.’
“When such a man as DOCTOR GEORGE CAMPBELL, of Scotland, the President
of a Presbyterian College, says that ‘the word BAPTIZIEN, both in the
sacred authors and classical, signifies to DIP, to PLUNGE, to IMMERSE,
and was thus rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers,’
that ‘it is ALWAYS construed suitably to this meaning,’ that ‘it is
never in any case, sacred or classical, employed in the sense of rain or
sprinkle,’ you have only to say, that ‘Doctor George Campbell differs on
these points from Doctor N. L. Rice.’
“When a learned professor of Greek, like the well-known Charles Anthon,
of Columbian College, the author of some of our most valuable classical
school books, expressly asserts that ‘the primary meaning of the word is
to dip or to IMMERSE, and its secondary meanings, if it ever had any,
all refer in some way or other to the same leading idea,’ that
‘sprinkling and pouring are entirely out of the question,’ you have only
to say: ‘Mr. Anthon is only a learned _professor_ of languages, and I, a
DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, take it upon myself to assure you that he is
entirely mistaken. IT IS NOT TRUE; and whether Professor Anthon is
ignorant or false, the world may judge.’
“Now if I, a simple, untitled pastor, should talk so, they would not
believe me. I tried it, sir. I asserted roundly, just as Doctor Miller
had done. I intended to use his very words: ‘Now we contend that this
word does not necessarily, or even commonly, signify to immerse, but
also implies to wash, to sprinkle, to pour on water, and to tinge or dye
with any liquid, and therefore accords very well with the mode of
baptism by sprinkling or affusion.’ ‘I can assure you,’ he says in
another place, ‘that the word we render baptize does legitimately
signify the application of water in any way as well as by immersion.’
Now I could make assertions as confidently as even Doctor Rice himself,
but I found that I was expected to prove them, and that from the
Scriptures, and in such a way that the demonstration should be plain to
the common sense of an earnest and shrewd, quick-witted girl. I assure
you I had rather have tried to satisfy a dozen Doctors of Divinity.”
“But why did you not go to the Lexicons, as I did in my Lexington
debate? Why did you permit that young lawyer to wrest this weapon out of
your hands at the very beginning? Mr. Campbell began to quote the
Lexicons on me, but I showed that this was a game at which two could
play.”
“And yet I am sure, sir, Miss Theodosia would have said that you lost
the game, however well you played. The truth is, Doctor Albert Barnes,
by pointing to the _places_ in the Old Testament where they could find
the meaning of the word as it was used among the Jews, had taken away
the necessity for any reference to Lexicons, unless it were to prove
that Barnes was a false interpreter, and this I did not like to do. But
what could the Lexicons have availed for my purpose, even as quoted by
yourself? You appealed to eleven of them, and I suppose you gave the
most favorable definitions you could extract. Now, you will remember
that neither Miss Ernest nor Mr. Percy had taken any such ground as Mr.
Carson had done, or as Mr. Campbell did in your debate. No one in our
company insisted that _immerse_ was the _only_ and _necessary_ meaning
of the word, but only that it was the _common_ and _most frequent_
meaning, in connection with which it was most _likely_ to be employed,
and which it must therefore (according to the ordinary rules of
interpretation) be understood, _unless the context required some other_.
Now you know, as well as I, that the rule of the Lexicons is to give the
common, every-day meaning, as the primary or _first_ definition. And
yet, when you attempted to ascertain the meaning of the word baptizo by
the Lexicons, what did they testify?
“_Scapula_, according to your own rendering, gives baptizo, to dip or
immerse; also to dye, as we immerse things for the purpose of coloring
or washing them; also to plunge, submerge, to cover with water, etc.
“_Hedericus_ gives to dip, immerse, to cover with water.
“_Stephanus_.—To dip, to immerse, as we immerse things for the purpose
of coloring or washing; to merge, submerge, to cover with water.
“_Schleusner_.—To plunge, to immerse.
“_Parkhurst_.—To immerse in, or wash with water.
“_Robinson_.—To immerse, to sink.
“_Schrivellius_.—To baptize, to immerse.
“_Groves_.—To dip, immerse, immerge, plunge.
“_Bretschneider_.—Properly often to dip.
“_Suidas_.—To sink, to plunge, to immerse.
“_Ware_.—To wash, perform ablution, cleanse; secondly, to immerse.
“_Greenfield_.—To immerse, immerge, submerge, sink.
“Now, out of all the eleven, you could find but _one_, and that unknown
to fame, which does not give _dip_ or its equivalent as its first and
common meaning. Miss Ernest would have said the testimony is ten to one
against you. If you had come into court with ten witnesses against you,
and only one for you, Mr. Percy, as a lawyer, would have declared your
case utterly hopeless.
“But Mr. Campbell, at that time, gave you several other Lexicons, among
which was:
“_Robertson’s Thesaurus_, which defines it to immerse, to wash.
“_Pason_.—To dip, to immerse, to dye, because it is done by immersing.
“_Donegan_.—To immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to submerge, to sink.
“_Jones_.—Plunge, dip, baptize, bury, overwhelm.
“_Bass_.—To dip, immerse, plunge in water. Baptisma, immersion, dipping.
“_Stokius_.—To dip, to immerse in water.
“So we have in all sixteen witnesses who depose that this is its primary
and common meaning. Sixteen who testify that it must thus be understood
when nothing in the context requires another sense. And only one who
gives to _wash_ as its primary meaning. Mr. Campbell also mentioned
several others, whom he said gave it the same sense, and you did not
dispute his word.”
“But what of all that?” replied the Reverend Doctor Rice. “I would have
set aside all that array of dictionaries by quoting just one sentence
from the great Baptist, Doctor Carson, who ought surely to understand
what he says, and who was no friend to sprinkling; and yet he expressly
says, ‘THAT ALL THE LEXICONS ARE AGAINST HIM.’ This is testimony enough
for me.”
“But it would not have been for Miss Theodosia or Mr. Percy. They would
have asked to see the BOOK and the place, and would have read it for
themselves, and doing so, would have been sure to discover what you must
have known before you quoted it, that he does NOT say that all the
Lexicons are against the Baptists—he does NOT say that all or any of the
Lexicons gives sprinkling or pouring as a meaning of the word—he does
NOT say that they do not all agree in giving dip or its equivalent as
the primary and common meaning. ‘On this point,’ he says, ‘I have no
quarrel with the Lexicons. There is the most complete harmony among them
in representing dip as the primary meaning of bapto and baptizo.’ But
Mr. Carson denies that it has any secondary meaning at all, or that it
ever means any thing else but dip or immerse. And it is on this point,
that he says, page 55, ‘He has all the Lexicographers and Commentators
against him.’ I could not have satisfied my inquirers with such a
misrepresentation, even though my conscience could have permitted me to
use it. We all know that the Lexicons give secondary meanings to these
words, and in our company there was no disposition to question the
propriety of their doing so. But, sir, it has struck me with surprise,
since my attention has been turned to the subject, that not a single one
of all the seventeen Lexicons referred to and quoted by you and Mr.
Campbell give _sprinkle_ or _pour_ as even a secondary meaning. They
give _wash_ and _cleanse_, but several of them are careful to explain
that it is because things may be washed and cleansed by dipping them in
water. And I have been thinking, especially since I read your piece,
that what we are accustomed to call _baptism_ is not even _a
washing_—for if the Doctor should tell me to _wash_ one of my children,
who was sick, with warm water, I am sure I should not feel that I had
carried out the prescription by dipping the tip of my fingers in the
water and touching them to his forehead. And the truth is, sir—I suppose
I may just as well tell it—that since you have made so light of all the
arguments which I advanced in our discussion, and yet have given me no
better, nor told me to which of all our Doctors I can go to find any
more forcible or convincing, I begin to doubt whether we are not both
mistaken, and that Miss Ernest and her friends had better reasons for
leaving us than I can ever find for remaining where I am.”
“Yes,” exclaimed Professor Jones (who suddenly made his appearance,
unaccountably, as people often do in dreams), “I have often thought how
angry we should be if those who owe obedience to us should render it as
some of us render obedience to God. Doctor Rice, for example, says to a
little servant boy on Saturday night, go _wash_ yourself, or go _bathe_
yourself, and put on clean clothing for the Sabbath. The servant,
instead of bathing his whole body, takes a few drops of water in the
palm of his hand and pours it on the top of his head. ‘You little
rascal,’ Doctor Rice would say, ‘why did you not wash yourself as I
directed you?’
“‘I did wash myself, sir.’
“‘You did! Do you call _that_ washing _yourself_? Why, you did not even
wet your scalp. Come here, sir; I’ll teach you how to trifle with my
commandments.’
“‘Please, sir,’ exclaims the lad. ‘Please sir, don’t punish me; I am
sure, sir, I did wash myself; I can prove it to you sir.’
“‘Why, you little impertinent. You just now confessed that you only put
a few drops of water on the top of your head.’
“‘I know it, sir; but that was _washing myself_, sir; I can prove it by
the united testimony of all your DOCTORS OF DIVINITY, including the
Reverend Doctor N. L. Rice. You may be so angry, sir, just now, that you
don’t remember it, but in your Lexington debate you said again and again
that baptize means to _wash_, and of course wash means to _baptize_, and
when _you_ and our other DOCTORS OF DIVINITY _baptize_, you only put a
few drops of water on the person’s head. Besides, you said again and
again, that wash was a “_generic_” word (I believe that was it, sir),
and might be performed in any way, and as this is the way which all the
great DOCTORS OF DIVINITY use when =God= tells _them_ “_to wash_”
people, I am sure, sir, you could not expect _me_ to do more in
obedience to _your_ command than _you_ do in obedience to HIS.’
“But let it pass; I have just called in, Doctor, to thank you for
dealing so kindly with me in your article on Theodosia. It is customary
when one has been driven by his convictions of duty to leave some
denominations for others for those he leaves to seek by defamation to
destroy his peace and injure his usefulness. It is customary to attack
his character and impugn his motives. And the same course has sometimes
been adopted to counteract the influence of a _controversial_ BOOK. When
its arguments could not be met and refuted, the moral or Christian
character of the author has been assailed with a malignity which argues
very little for the piety of the assailants, and of itself affords prima
facie evidence that there is something rotten in the system which
requires such foul means to sustain it, and breeds such rancorous
spirits to contend for it. But it has gratified me much to see that you
speak of me in ‘sorrow more than anger;’ that you are more inclined to
pity than abuse. You think me weak and foolish, and that is the worst of
it. I could expect no less than that, for we all are apt to think
disparagingly of the intellect which _cannot_ see what seems to ours as
clear as light. You thought that my friend, Mr. Johnson, was simple,
because he failed to convince my niece and myself; and I might have
expected that you would think still worse of me, because I could not be
convinced. If Mr. Johnson had used _all_ the arguments which he could
have found in the works of Presbyterian Doctors of Divinity, you might
with good reason have thought him a simpleton indeed.
“He contended with Doctor Miller and other doctors, that the word
baptize means to sprinkle or to pour, as truly as to immerse.
“Like several others, and yourself among them, he denied that John’s
baptism was Christian baptism.
“Like you and all the rest he denied that Jesus went into the water, or
that John baptized in Jordan, but asserted that he sprinkled the people
standing in rows on the bank.
“Like you and the other doctors, he denied that there was water enough
to be had in Jerusalem to immerse three thousand, or time enough to do
it.
“Like you and the other doctors, he made an argument upon the _design_
of baptism, as being better symbolized by sprinkling than immersion.
“Like you and the other doctors, he made a very plausible argument upon
the Pentecostic outpouring of the Holy Ghost as baptism.
“Like you and some of the other doctors, he made the strongest argument
that it is possible to make upon ‘_with water_’ as the translation of
‘en udati.’ And he gave to each and every one of these arguments _all_
the force to which it was logically entitled, and if they could not
stand before the simple, common sense of a strong-minded,
earnest-hearted girl, it was not his fault, but the fault of the
arguments. If he had presented all the arguments which he could have
found gravely set forth by Doctors of Divinity, little Edwin himself
would have laughed him out of countenance. What if, like Doctor Dwight,
he had declared that ‘_Christ himself has expressly taught us that
immersion is unessential to the administration of this ordinance._’
“When he said to Peter, John xiii.: ‘He that is washed needeth not care
to wash his feet, but is clean every whit,’ from which the learned
doctor concludes that ‘a symbolical washing is perfect although applied
only to the feet; as perfect as if it were applied also to the hands and
the head, and if this construction be admitted, it must also be admitted
that the declaration is general and extends to every other symbolical
washing, and therefore to baptism, unless excluded by some plain
exception.’ See Dwight’s Divinity, vol. 4, pp. 150, 157.
“So also another Doctor of Divinity declares, that ‘Christ
discountenanced the practice of immersion in religious purifications. He
that is washed, said he to Peter, needeth not save to wash his feet, but
is clean every whit. John xiii. 9, 10. By reading this text in its
connection, we will perceive that so far from introducing the practice
of washing the body all over as a religious rite, he discouraged it, by
declaring it unnecessary, and by refusing to gratify Peter, who wished
to have the water applied to him in a more profuse manner than the
Saviour was using it.’ See James Wood, D. D., on Christian Baptism, page
35. If Doctor Wood is consistent with himself, he applies the water to
the baby’s. dear little foot, for it was the application of water to the
‘_hands_’ or the ‘_head_’ that Jesus ‘_discountenanced_’ and
‘_discouraged_.’ I presume, therefore, that Doctor Wood is not only a
Pedobaptist, but a _pedal_-baptist, a foot-baptizer.
“What if Mr. Johnson had said, as more than one of the DOCTORS OF
DIVINITY has done, that there is the same proof that the Eunuch immersed
Philip that there is that Philip immersed the Eunuch? Yet the great
Doctor Miller says: ‘There is the same evidence that Philip was plunged
as that the Eunuch was.’ And Doctor Dwight argues that if ‘_eis_’ means
into, and ‘_ek_’ means out of, in the narrative of this transaction,
they were _both_ plunged _twice_ and the Eunuch _three_ times. Here are
his words: ‘The declarations here made, are made concerning the Eunuch
and Philip; alike of both it is said that _they went down into the
water_, if we render _eis_ into; of both also it is said _that when they
came up out of the water_, if we render the word _ek_ out of. Now let us
see what will be the true import of the passage according to this method
of construing the words in question, _and they went down both into the
water, both Philip and the Eunuch_. That is, _they were both plunged.
And he baptized him, that is, Philip plunged the Eunuch._ And when they
were come up out of the water; that is, when they had both been plunged
a second time and risen up from their immersion, _the Spirit of the Lord
caught away Philip_. In other words, they were both plunged twice and
the Eunuch three times.’ See Dwight’s Divinity, vol. 4, p. 350, Sermon
on Baptism.
“Suppose that Mr. Johnson, like Doctor Wood, had gravely argued that the
Eunuch must have been baptized by sprinkling, because he had been
reading in Isaiah, and Isaiah somewhere, though not in the passage
quoted as that which he was reading, says that Messiah shall _sprinkle_
many nations, while every scholar knows that in the Septuagint, which it
is most likely he was reading, the word _sprinkle_ does not occur, but
‘_thaumasontai_’ astonish, ‘so shall he _astonish_ many nations.’ And
Doctor Adam Clarke says it is the best rendering of the Hebrew. That the
_Jews_ so understood the Hebrew is evident from their so translating it;
and therefore, whether the Eunuch read Hebrew or Greek, he could have
found no such word as sprinkle.
“But though your _Doctors of Divinity_ had talked volumes of such
nonsense, my friend, Mr. Johnson, had sense enough to see that arguments
like these could not be expected to stand the scrutiny of earnest,
inquiring _common sense_, even in a simple girl, and therefore would not
offer them. He used the best you have, and did the best he could with
them. I grant that both he and I used some _very simple arguments_; nay,
that _all_ our arguments were silly as long as we argued against the
truth, for every _false_ argument _must be foolish_, but neither of us
was as silly as some of you DOCTORS OF DIVINITY, and since you have
yourself condemned and ridiculed the _very arguments_ by which not only
he but thousands of your people are deluded and prevented from yielding
obedience to Christ, I trust both he and they will see their folly,
abandon their errors, obey their Lord, and like my niece and myself,
unite with his visible church.”
CHAPTER II.
Then I saw, in my dream, that Pastor Johnson sat with his good old wife,
in their own quiet room; but his countenance was sad, and she saw that
his heart was troubled, and knew that something had gone amiss with him
during his absence. With true womanly tact she sought to find out what
it had been without seeming to ask.
“I hope, my dear, you had a pleasant journey, and met with no
disagreeable accidents by the way.”
“It was as pleasant as I had expected.”
“You saw Doctor Rice, of course. I have been told since you started that
he is a perfect model of a Christian gentleman, and would certainly
explain every thing to your satisfaction. Did you not find it so?”
“Gentleman! Why, yes; I suppose he is what people call a gentleman—a
polished, pleasant gentleman—and he made, probably, what he thinks the
best apology that the case admits of.”
“But you were not quite satisfied with it? Well, I don’t wonder. It
_was_ too bad to call you a greater simpleton than could be found in all
the Presbyterian Church. But what explanation did he make?”
“My dear wife,” said the pastor, suddenly raising his eyes, and looking
earnestly into her face, “I begin to think that our _Doctors of
Divinity_ are no more to be confided in than other people, and that Miss
Ernest, Esquire Percy, and Professor Jones, were right in just casting
all their assertions aside, and going to the sacred Word and hunting out
its teachings for themselves.”
“Why, Mr. Johnson!”
“Yes, my dear; I never mean to trust the bare assertion of any _Doctor
of Divinity_ again as long as I live. Just think of it now—Doctor Rice
_laughs_ at my arguments in favor of sprinkling, and at Mr. Percy’s, and
at those of Professor Jones. He holds them up to the scorn of the world.
He speaks of them as though they were almost beneath contempt; and yet
you and I know very well that they are arguments which I _borrowed_,
EVERY ONE OF THEM, from a _Doctor of Divinity_. They are the very same
arguments which have been employed by Doctor Eagleton, by Doctor Newton,
by Doctor Wood, by Doctor Summers, by Doctor Miller, by Doctor Dwight,
and even by Doctor Rice himself. But to make the world believe that we
have some stronger and better arguments he laughs at these, as though
they were the mere twaddle of the veriest ignoramus in all Christendom.
But does he bring forward any stronger or any better ones? Does _he_
point to the chapter and the page in the works of our Doctors of
Divinity, where they presented any thing more convincing? So far from
it, he was obliged to own to Professor Jones, whom I met at his house,
that he had himself employed these very arguments in his debate with
Campbell; and the Professor also pointed out to him the volumes and the
pages in the works of our _greatest_ doctors, where they had employed
arguments _so much sillier than mine_, that I would have been ashamed to
mention them to a shrewd, sensible girl, like Theodosia. Now, what am I
as a Christian man and a Christian minister to do? I have all the time
believed that we were right, and, therefore, I so preached and
practiced. But you know I would sooner cut off this right hand than use
it to sprinkle another babe if Christ does not require _it_. It was
because I trusted to the teaching of our doctors that I thought he must
be right; but when these doctors hold up these very arguments, by which
I was convinced, to the scorn of the religious world, and yet give me no
better in the place of them, I can’t help thinking there is something
rotten in the system somewhere.
[Illustration: Pastor Johnson discusses baptism with his wife.]
“I intend, God helping me, to search into the _Scripture_ teachings for
_myself_. I remember that we could not find a single command to baptize
infants, nor a single example of one baptized. I remember that our own
best commentators, such as Barnes in this country, and Olshausen in
Europe, say there is nothing about it in the text I most relied upon,
‘Suffer the little children to come unto me.’ I remember that we could
not find _one single_ text, which even our own Doctors of Divinity all
agree upon as requiring or justifying the practice—that even concerning
the covenant of circumcision, which Doctor McNought thinks is our
strongest fortress. Professor Stuart expressly declares, in his
commentary on Genesis xvii. and Galatians, that they can afford it _no_
countenance whatever; and as to sprinkling, even Doctor Rice himself did
not, and dare not say that the Greek word baptize in the Scriptures has
ever been truly rendered _sprinkle_ by any reliable Lexicon or eminent
critic. He only contends that it may be rendered to _wash_, and then
says that washing may be done by sprinkling a dozen drops or less of
water on the person’s head. But _can_ it be thus done? If you or I
should tell one of the children to wash, not his _face_, but to wash
_himself_, would _he_ consider it a full and complete obedience if he
should only dip the tip of his fingers in water, and touch them on his
head, or face, or feet, or hands; for I don’t see as there is any more
propriety in touching one part than another.”
“I don’t think we would, my dear,” replied the good woman. “And if this
be so, I am sure it must be some _wicked MOCKERY to do that in obedience
to God’s_ commands, which we would consider as the veriest trifling if
it were done in the place of actual obedience to a similar command by
us.”
“I am afraid, my dear,” resumed the pastor, “I am awfully afraid we have
been wrong. God knows I _meant_ to do right—God knows I verily believed
that I was right; but this communication of Doctor Rice has made the
case look fearfully dark to me.
“I have thought, and prayed, and thought again, until my brain is dizzy.
I can’t help seeing Jesus baptized, as Mark says, ‘_Eis_,’ not merely
in, but _into_ the river of Jordan. I can’t help seeing the Eunuch and
Philip going down into the water, then the baptism, then the coming up
out of the water. I fear our doctors _twist_ and pervert the words in
trying to make them mean any thing less. I fear some of them almost
_prevaricate_ to hide the simple and natural meaning of the language.
But oh, it is a dreadful thought that we have all the time been wrong;
that I, a minister of Christ, have _all my life_ been the advocate of
error, and have been doing in his name that which he never commanded,
and having constantly undone that which he actually did commission all
his ministers to do. I must study more about it. I must pray more over
it. But if I find it so—much as I love my people, much as I love my
church, much as I love my brethren in the ministry, much as I love the
doctrines and the ordinances which I have so long taught and
administered, I trust I love the truth and love my Saviour better than
them all, and I will go down into the water as the Eunuch did, and Mr.
Percy shall himself baptize me, as Philip did the Eunuch, and when we
come up out of the water I trust to meet the Spirit of the Lord ready to
find a place for me to labor, and to bless my work.”
[Illustration: In a dream, Pastor Johnson is immersed by Mr. Percy.]
Then I saw, in my dream, some few weeks after this, that Mr. Percy had
returned from his visit to Nashville and the hill country of Tennessee
(an account of which is given in the second volume of Theodosia Ernest),
and he was standing in the same place where Theodosia had gone down into
the water. The company that stood upon the bank consisted of a great
multitude. Many of them had walked in a procession from the beautiful
new Baptist meeting-house, which stood near the old school-house where
Theodosia had been admitted to the visible company of Christ’s people.
Many others had come from the magnificent old building, in which, until
recently, Pastor Johnson had been accustomed to minister for many years.
Many had come from other places of worship, and not a few were there who
seldom witnessed any act of religion but one like this, which called
them out merely to gratify their curiosity. But vast and various as was
the crowd, they were silent, and solemn, and tearful, when the old man
stopped at the verge of the water, turned to their expectant gaze, and
briefly gave the reasons why, following his Saviour’s example, and in
obedience to his positive command, which he could no longer
misunderstand, he was about to “be buried with Christ by baptism.”
Those reasons we have not space to tell as he told them that day. It is
enough for us merely to state that, after earnest prayer for guidance
from above, he had resolved to “_search the Scriptures_” and discard the
doctors. That he had been unable to find any sprinkling commanded or
practiced as baptism. Nor could he find a single text which either
commands or justifies the baptism of babes, Presbyterian Doctors of
Divinity themselves being judges, since each text that one may claim as
teaching it, a half a dozen others will declare has no relation to the
case.
“There are,” said he, in conclusion, “many of my own former people here.
I see their once familiar faces. Some look on me with pity; and could I
have continued to practice, in my Master’s name, what he has nowhere
commanded, I should need their pity.
“Some look on me with heartfelt sorrow; and I see even now the traces
which their tears have marked upon their loving faces. My friends, I am
happier now than I have been for many months. Doubt has now given way to
certainty, hesitation to decision—the struggle, the long, agonizing,
heart-rending struggle between old attachments and personal inclination,
on the one hand, and duty to my Lord and Master on the other, has ceased
at length, and I have _peace_ with God and _peace_ with my own
conscience.
“It may be there are some who look on me with anger; some who will
follow me with bitter words; some who may malign my motives, and seek to
destroy my character; some who may send out rumors that their old pastor
was _deranged_, or something worse, and that the people whom he served
so long were glad to be so easily rid of him. Such things have been said
of others, and, doubtless, will be said of me. But, though you may
revile me, I will love you still. Though you may persecute me, I will
still pray for you, and long and strive to bring you to a knowledge of
the whole truth of the glorious gospel of my blessed God. And since you
cannot make me hate you, you cannot harm me by your hatred. I part with
you all in the love of the gospel, and pray for all, that God will help
you see, as I have seen, the sin and danger of setting aside the
ordinance of Christ, and teaching for doctrines the traditions and
commandments of men.”
Then they went down into the water, both Mr. Percy and the former
pastor, and he baptized him; and they came up out of the water, and I
awoke—and behold it was a dream! And yet, kind reader, _was it ALL a
dream_?
The End.
FOOTNOTES
[1] See Dr. Miller.
[2] “What,” says Professor Moses Stuart, page 298—“What are the
_classical_ meanings of bapto and baptizo? Both these words mean to dip,
to immerse, to plunge into any thing liquid. All lexicographers and
critics of any note are agreed in this.” And again, on page 288: “The
original etymological root of _baptizo_, _bapto_, and also of the nouns
and adjectives kindred with them, appears plainly to be the Greek
monosyllable BAP. The leading and original meaning of which seems to
have been dipping, immersing, plunging, soaking, drenching in some
liquid; and as closely associated with this, the idea of dyeing or
coloring, since this was done by dipping.” And again: “The precise
difference between bapto and baptizo is, that while they both _agree_ in
one common and original meaning, that of immersion or plunging, usage
has employed bapto to express the idea of coloring, as well as the idea
of dipping or plunging; while baptizo is _not_ employed in the
additional sense of coloring.”
[3] For an immense amount of testimony on this point, see Robinson’s
History of Baptism.
THEODOSIA ERNEST.
VOLUME II.:
OR,
TEN DAYS’ TRAVEL IN SEARCH OF THE CHURCH.
Nashville, Tenn.:
Baptist Publishing House.
S. C. Rogers, 59 North Market St.
1866.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866, by R. B.
Davidson, In the District Court of the United States, for the Middle
District of Tennessee.
CONTENTS
First Day’s Travel.
The converted infidel—The authority of the Scriptures—The object of our
investigation—Is the Church one, or many?—Has the Church any
branches—Difficulties increasing—A mystery developed. Pages 11–25
Second Day’s Travel.
The meaning of certain words and phrases used in Scripture to designate
the institutions set up by Christ, such as the kingdom of God, etc.,
examined and settled—Mr. Percy’s call to the ministry. 26–67
Third Day’s Travel.
The difference between the Kingdom and the Church, and some other
remarkable things concerning the Church brought to light—No Church
universal. 68–130
Fourth Day’s Travel.
In which we come upon some marks by which to know a true Church of
Christ, whenever and wherever we may find it. 131–165
Fifth Day’s Travel.
More marks of a true Church found—The tablet of marks completed.
166–182
Sixth Day’s Travel.
The Church of Rome tried by the marks or Scripture tests—Introduction of
episcopacy—Episcopacy unscriptural—Rome apostate, and the consequences
to Protestants. 183–256
Seventh Day’s Travel.
Digression on the introduction of Infant Baptism—The trial of the Church
of England begun. 258–288
Eighth Day’s Travel.
The trial of the Church of England completed—The trial of the Methodist
Episcopal Church begun. 288–314
Ninth Day’s Travel.
The trial of the Methodist Episcopal Church continued and concluded—
Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Congregational Churches tried. 314–444
Tenth Day’s Travel.
In which the Church is found and identified. 444–485
INTRODUCTION.
OUR blessed Saviour, when he was upon the earth knowing how very
difficult it is to engage the attention and open the heart to the
reception of religious truth, when presented abstractly, and in a
didactic manner, was accustomed to connect his enunciation of the most
important doctrines with a _narrative_ suited to illustrate and enforce
the teachings, while it gained the attention and secured the reception
of his doctrine. We have every reason to believe that these narratives
were most of them _fictitious_. The persons introduced did not actually
exist, and the incidents related had not really occurred. He was pleased
to _invent_ the narrative, to _suppose_ the events to have happened, in
order that he might by them illustrate and enforce the great lessons
which he came to teach. We do not imagine that there was really “A
certain rich man who had two sons,” to whom it happened as he related in
that most beautiful parable of the Prodigal Son. We do not suppose that
he had in his mind any particular person whom he called the “Unjust
judge, who feared not God nor regarded man,” and yet was moved by the
poor widow’s “importunity” to do her justice. His hearers understood
perfectly well that these were _fictitious_ narratives, employed to
_gain attention_ to a real truth. _Such fiction is no falsehood._ It is
not intended to deceive, and it does not deceive. Its object is
accomplished when it has won the attention to the _truth_ of which it is
made the vehicle.
What the prophets often did, and what Jesus habitually did, has been
done by good men in every age. They have _invented narratives_,
sometimes brief, and designed to enforce and illustrate a single
thought, and sometimes continued and connected, in order to convey a
system of doctrine or a series of truths. Those are fables, or parables,
poems or allegories, or simple stories, as may best suit the objects
which the speaker or writer has in view. If Bunyan had merely told in
plain, didactic language, the fears, the hindrances, the doubts, the
sorrows, the hopes and labors and final triumphs of the Christian, he
would have taught just what his Pilgrim’s Progress was designed to
teach; but he would not have taught it so effectually, nor indeed _so
truthfully_, as he has done by means of his inimitable work of fiction,
in which the truth is not only _told_ to the ear, but _shown_, as it
were, to the _eye_ of the mind, acting itself out in its natural and
necessary results.
The numerous writers who have labored so sedulously and so successfully
to make religious truth attractive and familiar to the minds of children
and young people, and whose works constitute the bulk of our
Sunday-school libraries, have not neglected to employ the _narrative_ as
the _chief_ means of gaining attention and reaching the heart. And just
so fax as such narratives are fitted and designed, _not merely to_
_interest the reader, not merely to excite his sympathy of arouse his
feelings_, but to convey important information, to teach some practical
lesson in morals or religion, to illustrate or enforce some great
religious truth, so far they have the sanction of the example of the
best of men in other days, and even of the Lord himself.
And what if it be true that wicked men have made fiction the instrument
of most terrific evil? What if they have used it to pander to the vilest
passions of depraved humanity? What if they have employed it as the
vehicle of false philosophy and false religion? What if they have
prostituted it to minister to a morbid and mawkish sensibility? What if
they have flooded the land with the filthy outpourings of the vilest and
most loathsome stews of profligacy and impiety? What if the infidel has
seized on it and wielded it as his most powerful weapon against
Christianity? Shall we leave it to the exclusive possession of the
enemies of God and man? True, they have degraded and polluted it, but it
is still a weapon of tremendous power. We will wrest it from their
grasp. We will sanctify, by consecrating it to God and souls. We will
increase its energies by earnest prayer for Heaven’s blessing. And we
will turn it against vice and infidelity. We will use it against error.
We will make it the exponent and defender of the truth as it is in
Jesus. Why should we not? Do we hesitate to make poetry the medium of
truth, because the vicious and the dissolute have sometimes stolen her
beautiful garments to cover up the most licentious conceptions of the
veriest profligates that have ever been blessed with intellect? Do we
cast aside our sacred songs because the lyre has been degraded, and made
to sing what modesty would not dare to speak in simple prose? No such
thing. If others deface her beauty, misconceive her purpose, and
misapply her power, we will weep over the perversion of so glorious a
gift, but we will not refuse to employ the mighty energies of poetry and
song in the soul-elevating work for which they were intended. Nor will
we, for a similar cause, abandon to the vicious the exclusive use of the
fictitious narrative. _We cannot conscientiously refuse to employ a
weapon at once so effective and so necessary to the present condition of
the reading world._
In the first volume of Theodosia Ernest, we have endeavored to make it
the medium of instruction to a class of minds which would, we thought,
be more easily reached by this than any other means in regard to certain
subjects which we consider as of vast importance to the true interests
of the religion of Jesus. We intended, when we began that work, to
condense to a single volume such arguments and facts as should appear to
us essential to the right understanding of the main points of difference
between the Baptists and other denominations of Christian people. But we
found that we could not do justice to the argument, and bring it all
into the compass of a single volume. We were therefore obliged, contrary
to our wishes and our first intentions, to continue the discussion into
the present volume.
In the first, we confined our investigations to those topics which are
embraced in what is commonly called the “baptismal controversy,” _to
wit_, the _act_ of baptism, the subjects of baptism, and _communion_. We
did not say all we desired to say, nor all that we intend to say, upon
these subjects; but we have been assured, by those whose opinions we
value more than our own, that on each of these points the argument is
satisfactory and _unanswerable_. If there is in the manner of presenting
it any thing _unkind or disrespectful_ to those who have conscientiously
come to different conclusions from the author and his brethren, we
sincerely regret it. We would not willingly grieve any lover of our
Saviour, or cause the weakest of his little ones to stumble. If we are
not self-deceived, we seek to know, and do, and teach the simple truth
as we find it recorded in the Sacred Word; and to do this kindly and
tenderly, but yet as one who feels that he must give account if he
should “handle the Word of God deceitfully.”
In this volume we have presented the subject of _Church polity_. We are
sure that Baptists themselves (we mean the masses, and not the educated
few) have very much to learn in regard to the true nature and
constitution of a scriptural Church of Jesus Christ. This has been less
frequently than baptism the topic of pulpit instruction or newspaper
discussion. What has been written upon it has, until recently, been
mostly inaccessible to the common people; and much of it, we humbly
conceive, has not been suited to give them _entirely_ correct
impressions even if they had seen it. We hail, however, with great
pleasure, the recent appearance of several most valuable works upon this
subject; and if we chance in some things to differ from the authors of
these works, or others who have attempted to develop the true idea of
the Church of Christ, we trust that our teachings will be tried, _not_
by the common opinion of modern Christians, of ancient Christians, _not_
by the theories or the practice of Pedobaptists, or of Baptists, but
simply and solely by the Word of God. To this the author has endeavored
to bring every position, and examine it carefully by its sacred light.
To this he appeals. By this, and this alone, will he be judged.
NASHVILLE, July 22d, 185
Ten Days’ Travel In Search of the Church.
FIRST DAY’S TRAVEL.
The converted infidel—The authority of the Scriptures—The object of our
investigation—Is the Church one or many?—Has the Church any
branches?—Difficulties increasing—A mystery developed.
IN the ladies’ cabin of one of those magnificent steamboats which ply
upon the Mississippi, was a mixed company, consisting of persons brought
together from various portions of our own and other lands. Some lounged
lazily on the rich sofas; some walked uneasily up and down the room;
some talked apart, in groups of two or three; some read the morning
papers, which the obliging clerk had obtained at the last landing;
others were intent upon the “latest novel,” or other trashy literature,
which may always be procured about the wharf from which a boat is
starting. Every thing readable had been seized upon by some one of the
passengers, to while away the tedium of the monotonous voyage, with one
exception. THE LARGE BIBLE, which some generous-hearted people had
presented to the boat, lay unopened upon the centre-table. Seeing this,
a gentleman who had been walking up and down in the dining-saloon, came
in through the open door, sat down by the table, opened the book with an
air of uncommon reverence, and silently read several chapters in
succession.
There was something in the appearance and the manners of the man that
attracted the special attention of a lady remarkable for the tasteful
neatness of her plain apparel, and the extraordinary beauty and
expressiveness of her face, who was sitting on the left of the table,
engaged in conversation with a matronly personage, who, with quite a
patronizing air, was expounding to the newly married pastor’s wife the
mystery of making a certain variety of bread.
The Bible reader had, on sitting down, taken his pencil from his pocket,
as though it had been his habit to lead with it in his hand; and once he
had placed it on the margin of the page, seemingly with the design to
make some mark, or note, when, recollecting that it was not _his own_
Bible, he laid it aside. When he had done reading, however, he turned to
the fly-leaf opposite the title-page, and wrote slowly and carefully
these lines:
The Book of God! let man beware, And note the words with earnest care;
Heedful to learn what God will say, And not to cavil, but obey.
After which, he reverently closed the book, and returned to the other
cabin. As soon as he was gone, the young lady reached the Bible, and,
with true womanly curiosity, hastened to examine the writing. When she
had read it, she found her husband, (a noble-looking man in the early
prime of life, dressed, like herself, with great simplicity, yet with
most perfect taste,) and brought him to look at it; remarking, as he was
reading it, “That man is a Christian, my dear, and, it may be, a
minister. We must become acquainted with him.”
“That is not unlikely. Show me which he is, and I will get the captain
to introduce me to him.”
She pointed him out, and her husband went to seek the wished-for
introduction.
“Captain, do you know that tall, dark gentleman yonder?”
“Certainly, sir. That is Dr. Thinkwell, formerly a practitioner of
medicine, but now a wealthy planter. His summer residence is not many
miles from Nashville. He will make the whole trip with us.”
“Will you have the kindness to make me acquainted with him?”
“Certainly; but you may not find his company so pleasant as you think;
though, for that matter, he is a perfect gentleman. But you know you
clergymen have your own opinions about some things; and the Doctor is
said by some to have very different ones. In fact,” and the captain
dropped his voice to a whisper, “he is said to be a Universalist, or an
infidel, or something of that sort—I don’t know exactly what.”
“I am all the more anxious to know him, then.”
“Well, I only thought best to put you on your guard. He is coming this
way: I will introduce you now.—Dr. Thinkwell, let me make you acquainted
with the Rev. Mr. Percy, a young clergyman, who, with his lady, will
travel with us as far as Nashville.”
“I am most happy to meet with you, Mr. Percy. There are but few of our
present company who will make the whole trip, and I shall enjoy the
voyage more for having some acquaintance in the ladies’ cabin.”
“Come with me, then, and let me introduce you to Mrs. Percy.”
They walked to the other apartment, and Mr. Percy introduced him to the
lady as Dr. Thinkwell; and, to correct her conjecture that he might be a
clergyman, added that he believed he was not a doctor of divinity, but
of medicine.
“I had fancied, sir,” said she, “that you must be a minister of the
gospel.”
“Why did you think so, Mrs. Percy?”
“From the reverent manner of your reading that book, and the lines you
left upon the blank leaf at its beginning.”
“I have good reason, Madam, to love and reverence that book, although I
am entirely unfit to become the expounder of its glorious truths. It is
true I once despised it. I will not say I hated it: I scarcely thought
it worthy of more than quiet contempt. Now I feel that it deserves far
more grateful consideration at the hand of all men than it is accustomed
to receive even from Christians. I cannot open it but with a sense of
amazement at the goodness and the wisdom of the God who gave it.”
“Then you were once an infidel?”
“If by an infidel, Madam, you mean one who does not believe that the
book called the Bible was a revelation from the Deity, I was an infidel.
But I was also more.”
“Surely you were not an atheist! I have been accustomed to think that no
person of ordinary intelligence and a sane mind _could_ be an atheist.”
“If by an atheist you mean one who is fully satisfied that there is no
God, I was not one. But if you mean one who very seriously _doubts_ the
being of a God; one who believes that there is not in nature, so far as
known to us, sufficient and satisfactory proof to show that there is a
God; then I was an atheist. He must be a bold man, indeed, who would
undertake to say that there is certainly _not_ a God; for although there
might be no evidence of God within his sphere of observation; nothing
within him, nothing around him, nothing in the earth beneath or in the
sky above him to show that God exists, he could not determine that there
_might not be such evidence somewhere else_. Unless he had ranged
through all the immensity of the universe, and perfectly mastered all
the facts which it presents, that one world where he had not been might
be the very world where God might be distinctly known; that one fact
which he did not know might be the very fact which, if known, would
prove the existence of a God. If any man be mad enough to take such
ground, you may well call him a fool. He has said in his heart not
merely that there is not evidence enough to prove that God is—so leaving
his existence in doubt—but plainly and positively that there is no God.
Such a man is not properly an atheist, but an anti-theist—not only
_without_ God, but _against_ God I was an atheist, but not an
anti-theist.”
“Pray, Doctor, sit down and tell us, (that is, if you have no objection
to speak of these things,) how it was that you were brought out of this
darkness of unbelief into the light of faith.”
“When I was an unbeliever, I did not hesitate to express my doubts, and
the reasons why I doubted. I took pleasure in encountering in argument
those who were silly enough, as I then considered them, to believe such
incredible things as the doctrines of the Christian religion; and why
should I now hesitate to avow my faith in God and in his word, and, more
than all; in Jesus Christ, my blessed Saviour? I will take pleasure,
therefore, in relating to you the process of reasoning by which I have
been led to the reception of the truth. But the story is a long one: the
arguments are various, and may, to you, seem complicated, and will
require our careful and undivided attention. This we can hardly give
during our stay upon the boat; but I trust there will be some favorable
opportunity before we part.[1] Meantime, let me have some conversation
with you upon another subject, in regard to which you are probably
better informed than I am, and about which I am just now in a state of
distressing uncertainty.
“It is not very long since I was led, in God’s great mercy to take Jesus
Christ for my Saviour. In doing so, I took him for my Lord and King. I
feel that to him alone I owe allegiance in all matters of religion; and,
if I am not self-deceived. I sincerely desire and intend to know and do
his will. I am aware that he requires of those who believe in him, that
they shall make a public profession of their faith in him, and unite
themselves with his visible people. This I should have done ere now, but
for a single difficulty, which is not yet removed, and in the removal of
which you possibly may aid me.”
“And what is that great difficulty?”
“Simply this: there are so many different organizations, each claiming
to be the Church of Christ, that I do not know which to receive and
unite with as his.”
“Permit me to suggest,” replied Mr. Percy, “that you have probably not
made a careful examination of the subject in the light of the
_Scriptures alone_; but have permitted the cross-lights of tradition and
of prejudice, or at least of early impressions, to confuse your vision,
and so divert your attention from the real object of your search; for,
had this not been the case, I do not understand how you could find
reason for even a moment’s hesitation.”
“Do you think, then, that the peculiar characteristics of The Visible
Church of Christ are so plainly and definitely set forth in the
Scriptures, that it is not easy to mistake on this point?”
“Surely they are, my dear sir; so that it is not only easy not to
mistake, but, I had almost said, _so that no man of common sense, who
will be guided by Scripture alone, casting aside the influence of all
human teachings, can possibly mistake_. Why, sir, after the revelation
of Christ himself, the great object of the New Testament Scriptures—the
very purpose for which they were intended—is, to give the constitution,
the laws, and the history of the kingdom which Christ came to establish
upon the earth; and it would be strange, indeed, if they have given them
in language so ambiguous that no one could understand it, or that any
candid inquirer should have any sort of difficulty in knowing what this
kingdom in its essential features is.”
“How, then, does it happen, sir, that there exists such a wide diversity
of opinion among the good and pious? If the thing is so plainly set
forth, why do not all see it, and see it all alike? How is it that we
have Episcopalians, and Presbyterians, and Lutherans, and
Congregationalists, and Methodists, and I can’t say how many others, all
claiming, each for themselves, that they are the true Church of Christ?”
“Excuse me, gentlemen,” said a middle-aged man, who looked up suddenly
from the newspaper which he had apparently been reading; “I do not
conceive of these various Churches that each claims for itself that it
is _the Church_, but only that it is a _branch of the Church of Christ_.
I am a minister of the Methodist Connection, and I am sure that, while
we claim for ourselves to be a part of the Church of Christ, we do not
deny that Episcopalians, provided they are good and pious, and
Presbyterians, and Lutherans, and Baptists, and, in fact, all
evangelical Christians, are just as much branches of Christ’s Church as
we are ourselves.”
“You would remove my difficulty, then,” replied the Doctor, “by showing
that it is a matter of no consequence at all with which of these various
organizations I shall unite, since all are equally Churches of Christ,
and I would obey him equally whether I attach myself to one or to
another. Do I understand you rightly?”
“O, of course I think my owe denomination more nearly right than any
other, or I would not belong to it; and if I should give you any advice,
I would say, sir, by all means unite with the Methodists. But still, we
hold that every man should be fully persuaded in his own mind, and that
every Christian, therefore, should belong to that connection where he
can best enjoy himself.”
“Your suggestion, then, does not quite meet my case. I not seeking to
secure my own _enjoyment_, but to obey _Christ’s requirements_. I am
willing to deny myself to do his will I only ask to know which (if any)
of these various organizations was that which he established, and into
which, therefore, he requires me to be incorporated. They are certainly
very different in doctrine, different in practice, and different in the
character of their membership. They cannot all be right. They cannot be
each the Church of Christ, unless Christ established several distinct
Churches. They cannot be _branches_ of his Church, unless he established
a Church with several different branches. This is self-evident. But if
he did, there is, of course, some record of it in this book;” (laying
his hand reverently on the Bible;) “and if you will do me the kindness
to point it out, I shall certainly avail myself of your suggestion, and
unite with that body in which I think I will best enjoy my religion.”
Saying this, he pushed the Bible across the table, so that it lay
directly before the stranger, who mechanically opened it, but without
looking into it, as he replied, “You would not, of course, expect to
find the Methodist, or Episcopal, or Lutheran, or Presbyterian Churches
described by name in the Word of God, for none of them existed, or were
known by name, in the days when the Scriptures were written; but we hold
that it is all-sufficient, _if the essential doctrines and practices of
each or any of them can be established by Scripture proof_. If the
doctrine and practice of any of them, or all of them, are scriptural,
then they are scriptural Churches.”
“But do you not see, my dear sir, that while they _differ_ in doctrine
and practice, they _cannot_ be all scriptural, unless the Scriptures
teach as many different and opposing systems of doctrine and practice as
there are Churches. If any one of them is in accordance with Scripture,
it follows, of necessity, that just so far as the others differ from
_it_, they differ from the Scripture. There _can_ be only one scriptural
Church of Christ, unless Christ founded more than one, and gave them
different laws. This, I am sure, needs no proof: it is self evident: And
what I ask, and must require, before I can avail myself of your kind
suggestion, that I may unite with any one of these organizations, and
feel that I am obeying him, is, that you show me some shadow of proof,
some faint intimation at least, that his Church was _not_ one and
undivided, but that he gave different constitutions, laws, and doctrines
to different classes of people, or, at least, that he authorized the
_one_ Church to divide itself into what you call branches. So far as my
investigations have gone, I find his kingdom spoken of as an undivided
kingdom. His people are said to be _one_. There is one fold and one
shepherd: there were to be no divisions among them. They were all to
speak the same thing. We read, indeed, of different individual Churches,
as the Church of the Corinthians, and of the Church of Ephesus, and the
like—separate, and distinct, and independent organizations—but they were
one in doctrine, one in practice. They all walked, or were required ‘to
walk, by the same rule.’ They had all ‘one Lord, one Faith, and one
Baptism.’ It is thus that I read; but if I read amiss, I will be
thankful to him who will show me my error. You say, sir, that these
modern sects are _branches_ of the Church: if so, where or which is the
main and parent stock planted by Christ and cultivated by the apostles,
from which these branches grow? If that is still alive, I will be
engrafted into it. If _it_ dead, what keeps alive the branches? If the
original stock is so cut up into branches that it cannot be found, show
me some scriptural authority for the cutting up, and some command
requiring me to add my name to any of them as I may think most proper. I
read, indeed, of Christ as the vine, and of _individual Christians_ as
branches growing out of him, and living by his life; but nowhere of a
parent stock of _churches_, with branches growing out of _it_. Can you
point me to any such a passage?”
“Indeed, sir,” replied the preacher, “I do not deny and suppose that no
one can deny, that there ought to be general unity among Christians, and
that the divisions and dissensions which have separated the professed
followers of Christ are greatly to be deplored; but, at the same time,
sir, human nature is imperfect: men will not all see alike, and hence
there always have been, and always will be, differences of opinion, and,
consequently, of practice.”
“Very true, my dear sir, but this does not affect the point about which
we are conversing in the slightest degree. The question which I ask is
this: What or which is that organization which was established by
Christ, and called his Church or kingdom? I feel that it is my duty to
join myself to it. You reply that human nature is imperfect, and men
will differ from each other, so that some think this and some think that
is it. One says, here, in the Roman Catholic hierarchy; another says,
there, in the Episcopal; another, in the Lutheran another, in the
Presbyterian; and so on, through the catalogue. You have your private
opinion that it is in the Methodist Connection, but assure me that any
of them will do. Now, to me it seems evident that, although human nature
_is_ imperfect, God’s _revelation_ cannot be. In that revelation (it is
admitted by all) is revealed and described a visible organization, which
was devised and established by Jesus Christ, and is called his Church.
Whatever that may be, it is some _one_ thing, and not a dozen different
things; for a kingdom divided against itself, said Jesus, cannot stand.
It is, what it is there represented to be, just that, and nothing else.
It must be still in existence, because he foretold that it should never
fail; that the gates of hell should not prevail against it. Now, my
object is to find it; and, having found it, to become a part of it.”
“I do not conceive, sir,” said Mr. Percy, “that you will meet with any
serious difficulty in making the discovery, when you once begin at the
_right place_ and look in the _right direction_.”
“I must have started wrong then, for, up to this time, I confess there
is an impenetrable obscurity hangs over the whole subject.”
“Will you permit me to ask,” said Mrs. Percy, “of what denomination were
your parents?”
“They belonged to the Church of England, madam.”
“Then you were sprinkled in your infancy.”
“So I have been told. And I remember that, when I was about twelve years
old, the bishop put his hands upon my head, and said some words, which
they informed me confirmed my baptism, and completed the process of
making me a Christian.”
“Then,” said she, “you have some predilections for the organization
which you were taught in childhood to regard as the only Church of
Christ.”
“It may be so, madam; but I do not think you apprehend the exact nature
and extent of the difficulties which embarrass and distress me. My
mother was a good and pious Christian. In most things she was right; and
I grant that I cannot help feeling a smothered conviction that she must
have been right in whatever pertained to her religion. But, at the same
time, I am quite ready, upon sufficient evidence, to admit that she was
wrong. My parents did not make religion the special study of their
lives. They received _their_ religious opinions from others, in their
childhood, as _I did mine_, so far as I had any, until recently; they
never made them the object of any careful examination, but took it for
granted that what ‘the Church’ believed must be the truth. So, if what
is called the Church was wrong, they were wrong, of course. But here is
the trouble: _I_ have not made religion the study of _my_ life any more
than _they_ did; _my_ judgment, therefore, is worth no more than
_theirs_. And when I turn to those who _have_ given the labor of their
lives to this very thing, I find that they have come to such various and
contradictory conclusions, that I am ready to despair of the possibility
of ever knowing certainly what is the truth.
“I fix my attention upon one man. I see that he has an intellect
superior to my own; that he has piety which I never expect to equal;
that he has stores of learning such as I never can obtain. He is honest;
he is earnest; he is studious and prayerful. He has spent a long life in
the almost exclusive study of this very subject, and he is a
Presbyterian. I turn to another, and he is a Methodist; to another of
the same class, and he is a Lutheran, a Congregationalist, a Baptist, or
possibly, like Fénélon, a Catholic.
“Now, what am I to do? How can I decide who of them all is right? How
venture in my ignorance to determine what all the wisdom of pious sages
leaves open to dispute?”
“That is just what I said,” replied the Methodist. “The whole matter is
involved in so much uncertainty, and each of the Churches can present so
many good and valid reasons in its favor, that every one must consult
his own inclinations, and join that which is most congenial to his
feelings.”
“I cannot think so, sir,” resumed the Doctor; “for when, on the other
hand, I turn my attention to God, instead of man—when I look into the
Holy Word, I find a _positive duty is imperatively enjoined_. This
duty—that of uniting with the Church of God by a public profession of
faith in Christ—poses a previous decision of the question, who and what
that Church is. And the Scriptures must, therefore, (if I only knew how
to find it,) contain such a specific description of the nature and
peculiar characteristics of that Church as to enable me to decide which
it is for myself, and that without any danger of mistake. Still, I
confess that I have not yet found any such description in the book, or,
if I have, have not yet found the corresponding organization in this
country.”
“If you will pardon me for saying so, Doctor,” replied Mr Percy, “I
think I can easily convince you that your difficulties are much more
fanciful than real; or rather that they are much more theoretical than
practical. The simple truth is this: You have nothing to do with other
men’s decisions. It is nothing at all to you or to me what this good man
or that great man may think. Religion is a _personal_ matter; its faith
is _personal_ faith; its duties are _personal_ duties. It rests upon a
_personal recognition_ of the teachings of God’s Word. You are
personally responsible to God for your own individual faith and
practice. You must therefore examine for _yourself_, and not leave
others to decide these questions for you.
“You may investigate the subject just as though no one else had ever
thought of it. You should regard no other man’s decision as of authority
to you. You do not hesitate to treat a case of fever, because
Hippocrates and Galen, Boerhave or Sydenham, Cullen or Bronsais, chanced
to disagree either in theory or practice?”
“No, sir. I examine for myself, decide for myself, and act upon my own
decision. If I should wait for the doctors to agree, I should never make
a prescription.”
“Just so let it be in regard to this matter. I discover that you are in
earnest. You desire to know the truth. You recognize God’s Word as the
only standard of truth. By that, and that alone, we are to try our faith
and practice. You have truly stated that this word teaches that the
visible kingdom of Christ is not many, but one; and it must be now just
what it was in the apostles’ days: I have my own opinion upon this
question, but I will not intrude it upon you as an argument. If you will
consent, we will together, during our voyage, make a careful, thorough,
and systematic examination _of the Scriptures_ in regard to their
teachings on this subject. And when we have finished, if you have any
shadow of a doubt remaining, it will be more than I expect. My friend,
Mr. Courtney, who will join us at our next landing, has given more
attention to these subjects than I have, and will doubtless take
pleasure in giving us his assistance, as will also, I trust, our
Methodist friend.”
“Please then,” said Mrs. Percy, “postpone this matter till to-morrow,
and, for our mutual advantage, make the investigation so thorough and
extensive as to leave no room for doubt in any mind.”
“But, madam, you do not reflect that this would require all the leisure
which we will have during the next two weeks.”
“Suppose it should: it will be time well spent. But we shall get on
faster than you imagine. Mr. Courtney is a sort of walking-library upon
these subjects, and Mr. Percy has had some personal experience in such
investigations.”
“Very good,” replied the Doctor; “we will at least do what we can
towards a complete examination of the whole subject, and should we not
finish it during our voyage, you and Mr. Percy will, I trust, do me the
favor to continue it at my house, after our arrival in Nashville; for
you are then to be my guests. Nay! no excuses. I have claims upon you
both, of which you are yet quite ignorant; and, in due time, I am very
anxious to learn how and when you chanced to become Mrs. Percy; for when
I saw you last, you were Miss Theodosia Ernest; and how and when Mr.
Percy became a minister of the gospel; for when I last saw him, he was
regarded only as a very promising young lawyer.”
“Then, sir, you are not the utter stranger that we supposed you to be!”
“So far from it, madam, I am, in one sense, indebted to you, under God,
for the greatest blessing of my life.”
“Indeed, sir, this is all a mystery to me. I am not aware that I ever
saw you before to-day.”
“That may well be; yet I have seen you very frequently. Some other time
I will explain: I have now been shut up here so long, that I must take a
turn on deck, and get some fresh air.”
SECOND DAY’S TRAVEL.
In which little more is done than to settle the exact meaning of the
words and phrases used in the Scriptures to designate the new
institution which was established by Christ, and which people commonly
call his Church, but which the Scriptures call his kingdom.
IF the reader has never seen the work to which this is the sequel,[2] he
will do well to lay this down until he can obtain and read Theodosia
Ernest, for there is much in this which no one can fully understand
without some acquaintance with the history which that book records. If
he has seen and read that work, he will probably feel some faint desire
at least to know in what way good Doctor Thinkwell had ever been
associated with Theodosia, and by what means he knew any thing of
herself or her husband; and will excuse the curiosity, which led to much
conversation and many conjectures between herself and Mr. Percy, as to
who this stranger could possibly be, and what could have been the nature
of that favor for which he acknowledged his indebtedness to her. I do
not say that it was owing entirely to this that she passed a sleepless
night, for there was the heavy tread of passers to and fro upon the
deck; the creaking of the tiller-ropes and rudder; the frequent ringing
of the pilot’s bells, as signals to the engineers; the occasional
tolling of the great bell, as a signal to other boats; the constant
rattling and jarring of the ponderous machinery; and the splash of the
mighty wheels by which they were driven along the surface of the stream:
all these combined to hold her waking; and, being awake, she could not
help awakening her husband every hour, to tell him of some new conceit
concerning the mysterious Doctor; and I trust the reader will excuse
her, if she left her state room more anxious to solve this riddle than
to study the peculiar characteristics of a Christian Church.
Scarcely were the breakfast things removed, before she desired Mr. Percy
to secure an opportunity to renew their conversation. He went out to
look for the Doctor, and reported that he was smoking his cigar upon the
upper deck. As the night had been sultry and the morning was calm, Mrs.
Percy soon persuaded two or three ladies, with whom she had established
a travelling acquaintance, that it would be delightful to enjoy the
fresh air above. It was not long before Mr. Percy was walking the deck
with two young ladies, and his wife was walking with Dr. Thinkwell,
deeply engaged in earnest conversation.
“I must say, Dr. Thinkwell, it was too provoking in you to excite my
curiosity as you did, and leave it all night unsatisfied. Mr. Percy and
I could not sleep for anxiety to learn in what way you became acquainted
with a portion of our history, and how it was possible that either of us
could ever unconsciously have done you so great a kindness as you
intimated yesterday Now please explain yourself.”
“With the greatest pleasure, Madam; but only on the condition that you
repay my story by your own; for I suppose I am almost as curious to
learn your history, from the time I saw you last, as you are to hear
mine.”
“Let it be so understood, then. I am ready to promise almost any thing
reasonable; only tell me how you came to know us, and what the favor was
of which you spoke, and which you were pleased to call the greatest
blessing of your life.”
“It was, in part, through your instrumentality, Madam, that I was
recovered from the distractions of infidelity to the peace of faith. But
not to keep you longer in suspense, I will tell you how it was. I have
an estate in the country, a few miles from your native town, on which I
was spending a few months during the summer that you were baptized. One
Sabbath morning, as I was riding into town, I noticed a crowd gathering
about the old school-house on the common, and, moved only by an idle
curiosity, I went up and joined it. I soon discovered that it was a
religious meeting, but knew that it must be something uncommon, and
therefore dismounted and went in.
“It had been many years since I had been present at _any_ religious
services; and it was the first time I was ever present at a _Baptist_
meeting. The whole scene interested me greatly, from its mere novelty.
When the sermon was finished, and you presented yourself so calmly, and
related your Christian experience, I will not distress you by saying how
much I pitied your enthusiasm, and wondered at your folly. I was,
however, greatly interested. I followed you to the river: I felt an
involuntary shudder when you were plunged into the water: I gazed upon
your face as you came out; and, strange as it may seem to you, I wept
with those who wept that day. I was ashamed of it; I saw no reason for
it; I chided myself, and called myself a fool for weeping; but I could
not restrain my tears.
“I forgot the business for which I had come to town, and returned home
sad and thoughtful. I began to ask myself, What if this be _not_ all an
illusion? what if religion be, after all, a stern reality? what if there
be a God? what if the Bible should be true? what if there be a heaven
and a hell? Was it not at least _possible_ that I might be wrong, and
the thousands whom I had pitied or despised as dupes, or as impostors,
might be right? True, I had often looked over the argument, and found it
all correct; but was it not _possible_ that, at some point, my logic had
been at fault? Could it do any harm to go over the ground once more? I
determined to do so, carefully, step by step; but, in the meantime, I
was uneasy; I was distressed; I could think of nothing else. Day after
day, and night after night, I returned to the meetings, which you
remember were held, first in the school-house, and afterwards in the
courthouse. I witnessed all the professions of faith, and all the
seventy baptisms; and, though not yet convinced that the Bible was more
than a mass of fable and imposture, I spent many hours in its careful
study.
“At length it became necessary for me to leave that part of the country.
I had but few personal acquaintances, and to none of these did I mention
my distress, which continued and increased until it had sensibly
undermined my health. I felt that, one way or another, the question
_must_ be decided; and, slowly and painfully, step by step, my reason
struggled back from the dark abyss of atheism, to a firm belief in a
glorious, spiritual, intelligent, and efficient First Cause, which men
call God; and then, more slowly and laboriously still, to the
recognition of the Bible as a revelation from that God to me.
“I will not now even allude to the nature of that process of reasoning
by which this work was done. Some time or other we will, should
Providence permit, go over all that ground.[3] What sleepless nights and
days of anguish wore away, through the long and dreary months, while
this re-investigation was in progress, I almost shudder to remember. And
when this work was done—when had I found that there was a God, and that
the Scriptures were his message to our race—there came a time of still
greater darkness, and more oppressive agony of soul. Reason could show
me that there was a God; but reason could not tell me what that God
requires of him who has broken his laws, and rebelled against his
government. This I felt that I had done. I was a sinner. The God of the
Bible was a God I had not loved or honored. My very heart revolted
against his right to rule me. Yet I tried to conform my life, and even
my desires, to the requirements of his Word. The trial was a vain one: I
offended every day, and every day was more and more oppressed with a
sense of guilt. I needed pardon for the past, and I needed aid in the
present. I cannot say that I had any considerable _fear_ of punishment.
I did not think of this; but I was a sinner, and needed deliverance. I
prayed—O! how intense, how earnest, how agonizing was my prayer!—‘Lord,
save me; I cannot save myself!’ Like David, I cried, ‘I am distressed: O
Lord, undertake for me!’ and, little by little, the light of his love
shone into my soul. I began to study more and more the character of
Jesus _as a Saviour_. This removed the cloud from much of what had
seemed mysterious in the sacred record. ‘He was exalted to be a
_Saviour_:’ he was ‘Christ the Lord, a _Saviour_:’ ‘he came to _save_
his people from their sins.’ He _could_ save me: why should he not?
‘Whosoever will, let him come;’ and ‘come’ especially he says to the
‘weary and heavy laden.’ And, ‘he that cometh, I will in no wise cast
out.’ I took him at his word: I asked him to save _me_; I believe he
will—he has—he does; and I delight to meet with one who loves him as I
do, and tell what great things he has done for my soul.
“Now you have my history, and I shall expect you to tell me yours,
beginning from the time of your baptism; and so much of Mr. Percy’s (if
he will not tell it himself) as will explain the mystery of his
appearing as a clergyman rather than a lawyer.”
“I will keep my promise, Doctor; but you know that when a lady gets to
talking, especially about herself, she never knows when to leave off.
And my husband told Mr. Courtney that we would all assemble in the cabin
about this time, to renew our investigation of the nature and
characteristics of a Church of Christ; and, till I have learned why it
is that you could not recognize the body of Christians into whose number
you saw me baptized as one, I shall feel as though your history is not
quite complete. So let us go down. I hope that Methodist minister will
be there, for I am anxious for a full examination of the whole
question.”
“You cannot be as much so as I am. And with the understanding that you
will remember your promise at the first convenient time, we will now go
below.”
On entering the cabin, they found Mr. Courtney already there, with the
Bible open before him, in which he had placed a number of little slips
of paper, with a pencil-mark on each, to designate some particular
passage which he desired to refer to.
The party were soon seated in order around the table. Some of the other
passengers drew near enough to hear, without seeming to take part in the
discussion; while others, aware that it would be upon a subject
connected with _religion_, quietly drew farther off, that they might not
be _annoyed_ with any thing so distasteful and unfashionable.
“You understand, I presume,” said the Doctor to Mr. Courtney, “that the
object which we have in view is simply to ascertain _which_ (if any) _of
those organizations which now claim to be Churches of Jesus Christ, is
that which was established by =him=; and which is recognized in the
Scriptures as =his Church=_? Or, to be more specific and practical, is
it the Roman Catholic, the Greek Church, the Episcopal, the Methodist,
the Presbyterian, the Lutheran, the Congregationalist the Baptist, the
Cumberland Presbyterian; or is it all of these or none of these?”
“Certainly, sir. Mr. Percy explained your object to me soon after I came
on board yesterday evening; and I have been considering a little how we
could reach it by the most direct and plainest route. It seems to me
that it will be important, if not essential, for us first to determine
definitely what we mean by The Church of Christ. Let us be sure we know
what we are looking for, and then we shall be able to recognize it when
we find it. I suppose we may take it for granted that the Lord Jesus
Christ has, somewhere in this world, a visible organization of his
people, called _his Church_. The very fact that we are looking for it,
is evidence that we admit its existence. We need not, therefore, refer
to the Scriptures to prove that they speak of it as a perpetual
institution, which must continue till the end of time; that is, till
Christ shall come again. If proof were needed, however, we have it in
the act of institution of one of the ordinances of that organization, in
which Christ says, ‘As often as ye do it, ye do show forth the Lord’s
death _until he come_.’ And again, in the commission to establish and
extend that organization among all nations, ‘Go ye, therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you; and I am with you _always, even unto the end of the
world_.’”
“Of course, Mr. Courtney, no professed Christians doubt that such an
organization as the Church of Christ exists, since they all claim that
they are members of it.”
“Then we may take another step. It is essential to our purpose to know
what the Scriptures say about this organization; and, for this end, we
must know _by what names they call it_, otherwise we might not be able
to tell when they are speaking of it.”
“That is well thought of,” said the Doctor, “and may save us a great
deal of trouble. Much of the controversy which distracts the religions
world, I am persuaded, has grown out of a loose and careless manner of
employing words and phrases. Let us be sure to get started right, and
then the whole journey will be easy, and pleasant, and safe; and we will
be much more likely to arrive at right conclusions.”
“The Church of Christ is, in common language,” resumed Mr. Courtney,
“continually confounded with the kingdom of Christ. Yet it is in fact,
and according to Scripture usage a very different thing. It is not the
kingdom, but an institution within the kingdom; just as our courts of
law are not the State, but a requisite and essential part of the
machinery of the State. Let us first get some definite idea of The
Kingdom.
“One of the best expositions of this subject which I have seen, is given
by Dr. George Campbell, a Scotch Presbyterian, and one of the most
candid and erudite writers of the present age. He says, (page 132,) ‘The
religious institution of which the Lord Jesus is the author, is
distinguished in the New Testament by particular names and phrases, with
the true import of which it is of very great consequence that we be
acquainted, in order to form a distinct apprehension of it, and the
nature of the whole.… The most common appellation given to this
institution, or religious dispensation, in the New Testament, is “the
kingdom of God,” or “the kingdom of heaven;” and the title given to the
_manifestation_ of this new state is most frequently “the gospel of the
kingdom,” and, when considered under a somewhat different aspect, “the
new covenant.”
“‘The Great Personage himself, to whose administration the whole is
intrusted, is, in contradistinction from all others, denominated “The
Christ.” … In the phrase, the kingdom of God, or of heaven, there is
manifest allusion to the predictions in which this economy was revealed
by the prophets in the Old Testament, particularly by the Prophet
Daniel, who mentions it in one place as the kingdom which the God of
heaven would set up, and which should never be destroyed; in another, as
a kingdom to be given with glory and dominion over all people, nations,
and languages, to one like unto the Son of Man.’
“This opinion of the Scotch divine is substantially the same as that
given by Mr. Robinson in his Lexicon of the Greek Testament, where he
says, ‘These phrases’ [the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, and
the kingdom of Christ] ‘are synonymous, and signify the Divine spiritual
kingdom, the glorious reign of the Messias. The idea of this kingdom has
its basis in the prophecies of the Old Testament where the coming of
Messias and his triumphs are foretold.’
“It is certain the prophets had foretold Messias as a king: it is
certain that Jesus claimed to be that King. ‘Thou sayest it’—I am a
king. ‘For this end I came into the world.’ When John, who came to
prepare a people, made ready for this new Sovereign, and preached,
‘_Repent, for the reign of Heaven has come near_,’ (this is a literal
translation of Matthew iii. 2, rendered in our version, ‘Repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand,’) he doubtless referred to those
prophecies, and the people must have so understood him. So when Jesus
preached, Matthew iv. 17, saying the same thing; and so when the twelve
apostles were sent out to proclaim every where in Israel the same
notable words. All who heard then would understand them to mean that the
Christ, the Messias of prophecy, had come and had set up, or was about
to set up, his long-predicted _kingdom_.
“After John’s ministry had ceased, and he was confined in prison, Jesus
proclaimed, (Mark i. 15,) ‘The time is fulfilled—the kingdom of God is
at hand,’ or, literally, ‘_the kingdom has come_,’ for the Greek word
(_Engiken_) is in the perfect and not the present tense. The time is
fulfilled. What time? The answer is plain: that designated by the
prophets. The time when the new kingdom should be set up, which should
ultimately fill the earth; and which should be given to one like unto
the Son of Man.
“The old dispensation, with its rites and ceremonies, and complicated
types and deep-meaning symbols, was now superseded. The law and the
prophets were until John, said the Saviour, but since that time the
_kingdom of God_ is proclaimed, and every man presseth into _it_. From
the days of John the Baptist until now the _kingdom of Heaven_ suffereth
violence, and the violent take it by force. And to the proud,
self-righteous Pharisees and skeptical Sadducees, he said, The publicans
and harlot enter into the _kingdom of God_ before you. This could not be
if the kingdom had not already come.
“That the Jews were actually expecting this kingdom, is evident from the
song of Zacharias; from the happy exclamation of good old Simeon; and
from the confidence with which Anna, the aged prophetess, spake of the
child Jesus to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem. Luke i.
67, ii. 25, 36. So also we read that Joseph of Arimathea, a good man and
just, and one of the Sanhedrim; was of those who _waited for the kingdom
of God_; and the two disciples that walked towards Emmaus, talking so
sadly of his death, declared that they _had_ trusted that it was he who
should have redeemed Israel.
“May we not then consider thus much as settled: 1st. That the prophets,
and especially Daniel, had foretold the setting up of the Christian
institution as the kingdom of God. 2d. That the Jews were looking for
and expecting it when Jesus came. And 3d. That John first, and Jesus
afterwards, declared that the organization which Christ was about to
establish, and did establish, was this kingdom?”
“I do not see why you need to have taken so much trouble to prove this,”
replied the Doctor, “as I cannot suppose any one ever doubted it. It is
no more than this, after all, to wit: that the kingdom of Christ was
that organization which Christ established; and this was a self-evident
proposition which needed no proof.”
“I trust, then, you will remember this; and if you find yourself or
anybody else trying to show that something or other which was in
existence _before_ the time of John and Christ, or something that
originated a thousand years _after_ that time, is this Christian
kingdom, you will rebuke them for their folly. We have here the first
criterion of the Christian institution: that is, that it was organized
and had its beginning in the time or about the time that Christ was on
the earth. It was not in being before, for the prophets foretold that it
should be established _then_. And John and Jesus said that _then_ the
time was fulfilled. _Then_ it was preached. _Then_ men pressed into it.
_Then_ its laws were made. _Then_ its ordinances were established.
_Then_ the character of its members, the mode of Initiation, the method
of discipline, and whatever else was needful to its organization and
perpetuity, were ordained by the Great Personage to whom its
administration was intrusted.
“If you will now turn to the prophecy in Daniel xi. 44, you will see
that this kingdom, thus established, was to be a _perpetual_ kingdom,
and that it was at length to destroy all other kingdoms, and to fill the
whole earth. Yet it was not to be set up, like other kingdoms, by the
instrumentality of _men_. The stone that became a great mountain and
filed the whole earth, was cut out _without hands_—it was God’s work. So
Christ said, his kingdom was not of this world; his servants did not
fight. It had no human sovereign—it owned no human laws. God set up the
kingdom, and Christ, the ever-living, was to be its King for ever. For
the prophet mentions, as two characteristics of this kingdom, that ‘it
should _never be destroyed_,’ and ‘the dominion should _not be left to
other people_.’ Christ, in his kingdom, reigns alone and reigns for
ever. He will not give his honor to another, and if we find any kingdom
called by his name, which he did not establish, and which is ruled by
other Lords or other laws than his, we may be sure that it is falsely
named; for, in Christ’s kingdom, Christ alone is king. You see,
therefore, that we have already at least two signs or marks by which to
recognize this Kingdom when we find it; namely: It begun with Christ and
was established by him, and in it he is not only the supreme, but _only_
Lord and King. Its subjects on members are such, and only such, as =he=
has designated: its laws are such, and only such, as =he= has enacted.
Its officers are such, and only such, as =he= appointed. Its ordinances
are such, and only such, as =he= has instituted. And, unless the
Scriptures are unintelligible on the very subject which, of all others,
we would expect them to make plain, we can have no serious difficulty in
finding out what the constitution of his kingdom was. Let us take the
New Testament, therefore, and examine for ourselves.
“And first, let us examine such passages as designate the nature of this
kingdom. Christ says, (John xviii. 36,) when Pilate was questioning him
concerning the accusation which the Jews had made against him, ‘_My
kingdom is not of this world._’ It was _in_ the world, but not _of_ the
world. He had no earthly throne. He wore no jewelled crown. He held no
regal sceptre. He claimed no worldly power. No marshalled armies fought
at his command; nor was he in any respect a worldly king. And yet he was
a king; for this end he was born, and for this very object he came into
the world. And not to leave the governor entirely in the dark, he adds,
the _subjects_ of his kingdom are those that believe and obey the truth.
‘Every one that is _of the truth_ heareth my voice.’
“Again, he said to the Pharisees, (Luke xvii. 20,) when they demanded to
know of him when the kingdom of God would come, ‘The kingdom of God
cometh _not with observation_.’ There is nothing about it to excite the
attention and admiration of the uninitiated beholder. No one will
exclaim, look there, or see here. But the kingdom of God is _within
you_. It is an interior _soul_ kingdom; and its reign is not one of
outward pomp and power, but one of _inward love_ and heart-yielding
obedience. There was about it nothing to attract the gaze of the
wondering word; but yet it was, a _visible_ kingdom. Jesus said there
were some standing there who should not die till they had _seen_ it come
with power. And this they did upon the day of Pentecost, and during the
few days which followed, when over eight thousand were added to its
ranks.
“The subjects of this kingdom were _visible subjects_, men and women who
could repent, believe and be baptized.
“The ordinances of the kingdom were _visible ordinances_, symbolizing to
the eye as well as the heart the believers death to sin, and the
Saviour’s death for him.
“The laws of the kingdom were _visible laws_, recorded, under the
direction of the Holy Spirit, for the instruction and control of its
subjects.
“The _Executive_ of the kingdom, to which was intrusted the enforcement
of those laws, was a _visible organization_, with a fixed and settled
constitution, having the extent of its powers, and the manner and
occasions of their exercise, clearly pointed out and carefully defined.”
“O yes, Mr. Courtney!” exclaimed the Doctor, rather impatiently; “I
grant all that. I suppose no one has ever denied that this kingdom was
set up by Christ, and that it is a _visible kingdom_. But what I want to
know is this: Who were the _subjects_ of it? of what sort of people did
it consist? and how did they become incorporated into it?”
“Your question is a double one, and must have a double answer. What sort
of people were admitted to membership in this kingdom? Ask John. He came
to prepare the people made ready for the organization of the kingdom. He
rejected the self-righteous Pharisees and unbelieving Sadducees, and all
who claimed admittance for their _parentage_; and received only the
_personally penitent_, who believed on him who should come after him.
Ask Jesus. He says, ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the
kingdom of God.’ So it seems they are the lowly-winded and
humble-hearted. ‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’
sake, for _theirs_ is the kingdom of God.’ So they are such as are ready
to _suffer_ for the cause of Christ. Moreover, they must be _obedient_
to Christ, for he says, ‘Whosoever shall break one of the least of these
commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven; but _whosoever shall do and teach them_, shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven.’ But this obedience must not be
one of mere _form_. It must not be a mere observance of rites, and
ordinances, and ceremonies; for he says, ‘Except your righteousness
exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case _enter
into the kingdom of God_.’
“And these requisitions of humility and obedience are further insisted
on in several other passages besides those parallel with these.
“When the disciples asked him who should be the _greatest_ in the
kingdom, he took a little child and set before them, and assured them
that except one were _converted_, and made like such a child, he could
not enter the kingdom at all, and that he in it who _humbled_ himself
the most, should be the greatest. So also he taught that _mere
profession_ was no passport to admittance, but only _actual_ obedience.
‘Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven, but he that _doeth the will_ of my Father which is in
heaven.’
“External morality should afford no claim, for he assured the Pharisees
and Sadducees that the publicans and harlots, who _repented_ at the
preaching of John, were going into the kingdom of God before them, and
that they not only would not go in themselves, but hindered others from
entering.
“A faint resolution and temporary reformation were not sufficient
qualifications; for he says, ‘No man, having put his hand to the plough,
and looking Lack, is fit for the kingdom of God.’
“The subjects of this kingdom, we learn from Matt. vi. 33, are _willing_
or _voluntary_ subjects. They come into it, not by compulsion—_not by
the act of their parents_, or _guardians_, or _sponsors_, but of _their
own accord_, and they are not only _willing_, but _desirous_ to enter
it. ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness.’ This
language could only be addressed to voluntary agents. And Matthew (ix.
12) seems to convey the idea that they were not only desirous, but
exceedingly _anxious_ to enter. ‘The kingdom of heaven suffereth
violence, and the _violent_ (that is, the earnest, energetic) take it by
force.’ It is not enough to _seek_ to enter in, but they must _strive_,
must struggle, must agonize to enter in; ‘for many shall _seek_ to enter
in, and shall not be able.’
“But the decisive and all-including passage is John iii. 3, 5, in which
the King is explaining to Nicodemus the nature of membership in his
kingdom. ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God.’
“These are the principal, if not the only passages, in which the
_qualifications for membership_ in the kingdom are expressly described
in connection with the phrases, ‘kingdom of God,’ or ‘kingdom of
heaven.’ And this much, at least, is certain: _none are, or can be, REAL
members of this dominion, except they have been converted_, have become
humble, penitent, believing, and obedient to Christ, and have sought for
citizenship with earnest, heartfelt desire. Christ’s kingdom is not one
of mere outward _forms_. He reigns in the _hearts_ of his people. His
subjects _obey_ him because they _love_ him, _and no individual who does
not sincerely and heartily LOVE him; who does not humbly, and yet
confidently TRUST in him; and who does not truly, and resolutely, and
perseveringly endeavor all things to OBEY him, is a fit subject for his
kingdom_. He must, in his heart, recognize Christ as his Lord and King,
and seek to do his will, before Christ can own him for a subject, and
treat him as a son.”
“I think that I now begin to understand you,” said the Doctor. “You
regard _all those who love Christ as equally the subjects of this
visible kingdom_.”
“Not at all, sir. You mistake me altogether. I have been trying to
answer your _first_ question, which related to the kind of people who
compose the kingdom. I have not yet approached the second, which asked
_how they became incorporated into it_. The penitent, the believing, the
humble, the loving, and obedient, are fit subjects, and the _only_ fit
subjects _for_ the kingdom. They are members of Christ’s _in_visible
kingdom. Christ reigns in their _hearts_: Christ rules in their _lives_.
They are his by redemption, and will reign with him in glory. But
something more is needful, to make them members of his _visible_
kingdom, which is that for which we now are looking. They are such as he
has recognized as having _a right to membership_, but they are not yet
members of it. Abel and Abraham, David and Daniel, Job and Joshua, and
all the mighty host of the ancient saints, possessed this character.
They were the children of God. They trusted him and loved him. They were
the obedient upon the earth, and now rejoice with him in heaven. But
they were not the subjects of that kingdom which Jesus Christ set up in
the days of Pontius Pilate, for it was not yet in being. It had not been
established. They foresaw it: they foretold it: they rejoiced that it
was coming, but they could not be members of it till it came. If they
had lived in the days of its existence, they would have possessed all
the qualifications for membership, and would, doubtless, have become
members. _But something more than their piety of heart would have been
needful to make them members._
“Christ, as King, has appointed a visible door of entrance into his
visible kingdom. Those who would be subjects of it must first ‘be made
such in _their hearts_;’ and then, when they have been thus ‘duly and
truly prepared,’ they may be and must be _initiated_ by the ceremony
which HE has appointed. They have ceased to _love_ the world in their
hearts, and now they must openly come out _from_ the world, and
acknowledge subjection to him in that form and manner which HE has
prescribed. Until they have done this, they may be his subjects _in
fact_, but they are not his in _proper from_. They may be his in
_heart_, but they do not belong to his _organized_ and _visible_
kingdom.”
“I think,” said Mrs. Percy, “I can illustrate what you mean:
“A king has set up his throne in the midst of a rebellious population,
who have refused to obey him, and say, in heart and practice both, ‘We
will not have this man to reign over us.’
“He surrounds himself with a few faithful subjects. He gives them a code
of laws; and, among others, presents a certain _form_ which shall be
used in the case of every rebel who shall change his mind and join their
ranks.
“This code of laws is made public both in the kingdom and out of it; so
that all of both parties may know what is required of him who comes into
the ranks of the faithful.
“Now, when any of the rebels has grown weary of rebellion, and laid down
his arms, and has determined _in his heart_ to serve the King, he may be
_called a subject_. He is no longer a rebel. He has in heart become
obedient to the King. He recognizes his authority. He intends and tries
to do his will; but he is not _legally_ and _visibly_ a subject till _he
has gone through the form of reception prescribed by the King_. And if
he were in _fact_ obedient, and knew of the requirement, he would of
himself seek at once for such a regular and legal admission; he would
not continue to live among the rebels and be counted of their number.
This was the first act of obedience: the test appointed by the King to
_try_ if he were in fact obedient. And so long as he neglected or
refused to _obey_ in _this_ particular, so long he would not be counted
among the faithful.”
“But what,” said Mr. Percy, “if some who professed to be the officers of
the kingdom and expounders of the law, should assure him that some
_other_ test was that which was required; or that _no_ test at all was
needful in his case?”
“Then I would say that these wicked men falsely and wrongfully hindered
him from entering in, and that if all the circumstances were known to
the King, he would love him, and reward his good intentions as though
they had been carried into effect. But yet he _could not_, without
_repudiating his own law, and abrogating the form of admission which he
had himself enacted_, consider him as an actual member of his kingdom.”
“I thank you, Mrs. Percy,” exclaimed the Doctor. “Your beautiful
comparison has made the whole matter perfectly plain. Christ is the
King. He set up his kingdom in the midst of rebels. He sends his
messengers to tell them of his goodness, and strive to win their hearts;
for his reign is one of love. When any one is convinced of wrong, and
converted to the right, he is a _fit subject FOR His kingdom_; but he is
yet only prospectively and not actually IN his kingdom. To enter it in
person, as he has in heart, bodily and visibly, as he has in spirit and
in purpose, he must take the _oath of allegiance_, by submitting to
baptism, _the initiatory rite proscribed_ _by the King_. Till this is
done, he may be a _friend_ to the King, but he lives among his enemies.
He may be subject to the King in feeling, but he has not put on his
livery and joined his ranks. And fearful must be the responsibility of
those who venture, in the face of _CHRIST’S express command_, to assure
him that if the _heart is right_, the King requires no more; or to
mislead him into the belief that he requires _something else_, instead
of that which =he= commanded. But when one expounder of the law says one
thing, and another something else, how is the new-born subject to know
what to do?”
“He must examine the law _for himself_, sir,” replied Mr Courtney; “and
he will not find it double-tongued. The King made his commandment _very
plain_, and none misunderstood it until the wicked had perverted it. But
let us not wander from the point before us. You see that if we will
embrace all the fit subjects for the kingdom, all the humble, penitent,
believing, and obedient, we must have an _invisible_ kingdom, the limits
of which are only known to Him who searches all hearts and knows all
thoughts.
“I am very willing to recognize such a kingdom. It includes hundreds and
thousands of most excellent and heavenly-minded children of God, who are
not in the visible kingdom: some who, though converted, have never yet
publicly professed their faith in any form. They may have had no
opportunity; they may not have felt sufficient confidence in their love
for the King; or, like yourself, Doctor, they may be yet in doubt about
what the real visible kingdom is, and where it may be found, and how it
must be entered. It includes thousands who have been imposed upon by
their spiritual guides, and taught to believe that they _are already in
Christ’s kingdom_, while they are in some _other organization_, as
unlike it as possible, in every thing but name. They are good and pious
children of God. They love the Saviour, and Christ reigns in their
hearts on the earth, and they will reign with Christ in heaven. They are
_his_, and he knows them to be his: they are in his invisible
_spiritual_ kingdom, but they are not in his _visible_ kingdom; nor can
they be until they have entered it by that visible and significant
ordinance which the King appointed for this purpose. To illustrate what
I mean, what writer has ever exhibited a deeper and more spiritual
knowledge of the work of grace in the believer’s heart than Thomas à
Kempis? What minister of Christ has ever shown more evidence of love to
Christ, and love to souls, than Fénélon? What woman has ever done and
suffered more for the cause of the Redeemer than did Madame Guyon? Yet
none of these were in the visible kingdom of Christ, unless the Church
of Rome is the kingdom of Christ, and not of Antichrist. And as there
are many in the invisible kingdom who are not in the visible, so there
are many in the visible who have no right there, and never will be
recognized by the King. The rite of initiation _confers no moral
qualities_; and without penitence and faith preceding, it is of no
avail. Simon the sorcerer was baptized and regularly initiated into
Christ’s visible kingdom, but he had neither part nor lot in the matter.
He was as deeply steeped in the gall of bitterness, and as strongly
bound with the chains of iniquity, after his baptism as he was before;
while the poor thief who died upon the cross was not baptized and never
initiated, and yet he entered the Paradise of God in company with his
Redeemer.
“It was, sir,” addressing the Methodist, “precisely this error
(confounding the visible with the invisible kingdom) that first led to
the introduction of infant baptism. The Saviour said, ‘Except a man be
born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
heaven;’ meaning thereby (if he referred to water baptism) his _visible_
kingdom on the earth, that about which we have been talking; but men
understood it of the _in_visible kingdom, or kingdom of glory in heaven,
and so determined that as baptism was the only door of entrance into
heaven, it should be denied to none, not even to new-born babes.”
“Pardon me, Mr. Courtney,” said the Doctor, “but we are wandering from
our subject. We were examining the nature of the _visible kingdom_ of
Christ as it was established by him when he was here, and is destined to
continue till he shall come again. We have ascertained that it was to
consist of humble-minded penitents, who were obedient to the laws of
Christ, and trusted in him for their salvation; and that when thus
qualified _for it_, they were to be introduced _into it_ by the rite of
baptism. And although some of different character might be initiated,
they were but enemies and rebels still, though bearing the name of
friends and subjects; and though some having this character had been
prevented from initiation, so could not be counted as actual members,
yet they were not thereby divested of their title to those spiritual and
eternal blessings which are promised to those possessing the character
of subjects. I think we may now conclude that we understand the nature
of this kingdom in its relation to _individuals_. Considered as _purely
spiritual_, or as the _invisible_ kingdom, it includes all who in their
hearts have taken Christ to be their King, and in their lives are
yielding him (so far they know his requirements) a prompt and sincere
obedience. Considered as his _visible_ kingdom, as an _organized
institution_, it includes those of this character who have _come out
from the world_ and separated themselves to him by an open profession of
their allegiance, _and have been regularly initiated by the rite of
baptism_, as the King ordained.
“But now I am as far as ever from the object which I had in view when I
entered on this investigation. _I want to know where and which this
kingdom is, and how I can be incorporated into it_. I trust I am a
member of what we have called the _invisible_ kingdom. I am a subject of
the King at heart. He has in his mercy given me a _desire to obey him_;
and he requires me to _profess_ him before men, and _visibly_ unite with
_his people_. Can you tell me _where they are_, and how I am to get
among them? There are at least a _dozen_ different organizations, each
claiming to consist of genuine believers, who have been baptized. I know
them, for the most part, to be good and pious people, and am not yet
entirely convinced that their sprinkling is not valid baptism. So far as
we have yet advanced, therefore, they all have equal claims upon me; yet
I know they cannot _all_ be right, or else they would all agree.
Christ’s kingdom cannot be divided against itself, for Christ himself
declared that if it were so it must fall. ‘A house divided against
itself is brought to desolation; and a kingdom divided against itself
cannot stand.’ I know, therefore, that all these _separate_ and _rival_
organizations, with their various forms of government, opposite systems
of faith, and clashing interests, cannot be his kingdom; but you have
yet shown me no sign by which to distinguish which of them all is really
his.”
“Have a little patience, Doctor. We have not yet finished our survey of
the kingdom. We have ascertained, indeed, that _it consists of professed
believers who have been baptized_; and this clue, if you would follow it
out, would lead you to the truth. But we will not abandon our main
subject yet in order to follow it. It remains now to consider the
kingdom in regard to its _organization_. You have ascertained its
_membership_: now let us look at its _government_, or polity. This
kingdom not only has _members_, or citizens, but it has a _King_, and a
_code of laws_, and an _executive body_ by which, in the King’s name and
by his authority, they are administered. To this _executive body_, and
to it alone, the King intrusts the visible administration of his
government. Now if we find any organization claiming to be this kingdom,
or a part of this kingdom, the members of which _have not been
baptized_, you must set them aside on the ground already settled, viz.
Christ’s _visible_ kingdom consists not of believers merely but of
_baptized_ believers; and if we find any organization which has rejected
Christ from being King (not formally, but actually) _by acknowledging
subjection to another ruler_, or to other laws than his, we may at once
reject its claims upon this ground. It _cannot_ be the kingdom of Christ
unless it is ruled by _his laws_, administered by _his executive_, and
enforced by _his authority_.”
“That is self-evident, sir. But where and what is _this executive_ of
which you speak?”
“It is that organization called in the New Testament ‘_the Church_.’”
“I had thought, sir, that the Church and the kingdom were the same
thing—merely different names for the same object.”
“Not at all, sir. The Church is a _local_ organization, charged by the
King with the execution of his laws. It is in the kingdom: it makes _a
part_ of the kingdom: it is subject to the _laws_ of the kingdom; _but
it is not the kingdom_, any more than the courts of law and the
executive of any state are themselves the state.”
“My dear sir, you astonish me. Is not the term Church in the Scriptures
continually and almost invariably used as synonymous with the kingdom?
Does it not comprise all the visible body of professing Christians? I am
sure such is the general impression. How else should we read of the
Church universal, of the ancient Church, of the Church militant, and the
Church triumphant?”
“You do _not_ read thus _in the Scriptures_, sir. The Holy Catholic, or
universal Church, is a figment of men. The Scriptures commonly employ
the word to signify only a _local_ assembly of Christian people, who
meet together in one place to observe Christ’s ordinances, and to
transact the business relating to his kingdom. In the few places where
it has a more extended meaning, it is used metaphorically, by virtue of
that very common and natural figure of speech in which the name of a
part is applied to the whole. It is _never_ used in Scripture to
designate such an ecclesiastical establishment as that which you call
the Church of England, the Church of Rome, the Presbyterian Church, the
Methodist Church, and the like. But the elaboration of this point will
require no little time, and I fear some of our company may even now be
weary of this dry discussion. We have seen what Christ’s _kingdom_ is,
and let that suffice us for to-day. To-morrow we will try to get some
definite conception of the nature of his _Church_.”
“I am content,” replied the Doctor; “for, to own the truth, these things
are so new to me that I feel I need time to review the ground we have
gone over, and make myself _sure_ that we have not travelled out of the
record. Let me take my Bible, and examine again all these passages which
speak of this kingdom; and when we meet here in the morning, I may be
ready to take the other step in this investigation. And Mr. Percy, with
your consent I shall invite your good lady to take a walk with me on
deck, and fulfil a promise which she made yesterday.”
“I surely will not object, sir, provided I can make an arrangement for
myself as agreeable as that of yesterday.”
The company disappeared from the ladies’ cabin, and were soon talking of
other matters.
The Doctor claimed of Theodosia that she should, according to her
promise, relate her own and Mr. Percy’s history from the time of her
baptism. She told him much, but she did not tell him all; and we feel
that it is due to the reader of these pages that he should be made
particularly acquainted with some facts to which she scarcely alluded;
and moreover, there were some things which she told which are already
known to him who has perused the first volume of this work. We think it
best, therefore, to resume the narrative where we left off; and go on to
tell it in our own way.
The reader will remember that Mr. Percy had been converted to Christ on
his way home—had gone into the meeting at the Court-house, related his
experience of grace, and been received as one proper to be baptized.
Before he had been baptized, however, he was stricken down suddenly by
the hand of disease. Long time the balance wavered between death and
life. By his avowal of his faith, and application for baptism, Theodosia
felt that the only barrier to their contemplated union had been
removed—he was her own betrothed again. She longed to tell him how her
heart had poured its very life out in that sad and almost fatal letter
which she felt had caused his sickness.
Called to his bedside by his mother and his physician, (as we have seen
in the other volume,) she became to him not only the angel of his
dreams, but the ministering angel of his waking hours. When he was
strong enough to talk, he told her how bitterly his heart had wept at
the remembrance of his vain attempt to persuade her to deny her Lord for
him—to refuse obedience to Christ’s plain and imperative command, in
order that she might not grieve or offend him whom she loved more than
all else but Christ. He told her how he had wished to recall that
rashly-written letter; how he had hoped it would have no effect upon her
conduct; how happy he was to find that she had done her duty, without
regarding it; how much more firmly he could trust her now—how much more
tenderly he loved her now—since he had realized that nothing could turn
her from the path of right.
And did she tell him how that letter of his had rent and crushed her
heart? Did she tell him how it had for the time almost dethroned her
reason? Did she tell him with what _agony_ she slowly and mournfully
came to her decision to give up _all_—to give up even _him_—for Christ?
She only told him how she had reproached herself for writing an answer
which had caused him so much suffering.
“What!” exclaimed he, “did you send an answer to my letter? I never saw
it—I did not know that you had written one!”
This suggested a new thought. She knew from the doctor that he _had_
seen it. She knew that it had driven him to the very door of death. The
doctor had taken it from the hand that grasped it, even as he lay
senseless upon his office-floor. She had it now in her possession. But
Mr. Percy had no remembrance of it: the hand that struck him was so
heavy that it stunned the brain; and he had never realized from what
source the blow had come. She turned the conversation to another theme.
“You are rapidly getting your strength again. The doctor says that you
are now out of danger. I must leave you, and return home.”
“Not to-day, I hope.”
“No; but if you continue to improve, I must to-morrow. There is no
longer any _necessity_ for my presence.”
“I see how it is,” he replied. “You came when they told you I was like
to die; and now your delicacy suggests that you ought not to stay. Well!
be it so; but let me tell you, dearest, that your coming saved my life.
My mind, I know, has sometimes wandered; and I am conscious now of a
strange fancy—I know not whence it came—that you had utterly disowned
and cast me off. This fancy preyed upon my heart, and gnawed away my
life. Sometimes, in my dreams—it may have been in my delirium—I saw your
image hovering about the room, looking so tenderly and pitifully into my
eyes that I began to doubt if it were not my Theodosia; and when I found
that you were really here—that it was your kind hand that prepared my
food—your hand that gave me drink—your voice that answered my feeblest
call, and your presence that calmed my distracted mind, I at once grew
strong—I had something to live for; and now I feel that I shall live to
make you at least some return of love for all your care.”
“There, hush now, Mr. Percy; you are talking too long, and will bring
back your fever. Try to compose yourself to sleep. Your mother will stay
with you till I return;” and she stole away to pour out her heart in
thanksgiving to that Redeemer who was giving back to her, one after
another, all the treasures which she had given up, in her purpose that
she might keep his commandment.
She returned to her mother’s; and it was not many days before the
conversation was renewed in the little parlor of Mrs. Ernest’s cottage.
Several weeks had passed. Mr. Percy was well and strong again: he had
returned to his office, and was earnestly engaged in closing up his
business. He had determined to abandon his profession, and engage in the
work to which he felt the Lord had called him; but of this he had as yet
said nothing, except to his friend and confidant, Dr. Woodruff.
“What,” asked the Doctor, “will Theodosia say to this? You may abandon
your business, in which you could soon realize a fortune, and devote
_yourself_ to a life of hardship and poverty; but have you a right to
entail poverty upon _her_? Are you willing to see _her_ lead the life of
a poor pensioner on the reluctant _alms_ of Baptist churches?”
“O no, my friend, nothing of that sort will be necessary The ministers
of Christ are worthy of their hire. They _earn_ their support. It is not
alms, but wages they receive.”
“Yes, yes, you may well say they _earn_ it. They _earn_ vastly more than
they get; but though they earn it, those who receive the benefit of
their labors usually understand that they are under no _obligation_ to
pay for them; and that the preacher should be very thankful if they
condescend to give him the means of a hare subsistence. Look at the
facts, Mr. Percy. Here are some twenty Baptist churches in this county:
is there any one of them that gives its pastor even a bare support? I
know these people better than you do. They will pay their doctors, and
pay their lawyers, and pay their mechanics and their merchants; but they
seem to me to have deliberately made a calculation to ascertain just how
_little_ a preacher can barely subsist upon, and that _little_ they
_promise_ to pay him, but feel that it is only a gift—a mere matter of
alms—which he cannot _legally collect_; and therefore they _forget_ it
and _neglect_ it, until he becomes disheartened, and removes to another
church, to be deluded again by similar promises. Some of the members are
always glad when this occurs; for from that moment they feel released
from all obligation ever to pay what they had promised him.”
“Surely,” said Mr. Percy, “this must be an exaggeration. No Christian
people could so disregard not merely the demands of common honesty, but
also the express injunction of the Saviour, that ‘They who preach the
gospel shall live of the gospel.’”
“I think so too,” replied his friend; “and for this very reason am
disposed greatly to doubt whether these Baptists are Christian people.
As you have not joined them yet, I hope you won’t get angry at my saying
so.”
“If I _had_ joined them, I should be very silly to be angry at the
truth; but I can’t believe that this _is truth_.”
“Let me convince you, then. There is old Mr. Doe: I know his history. He
entered the ministry after he had a family, and he gave up a profitable
employment to do so. He has been the pastor of half the churches in the
county. Everybody has confidence in him—everybody esteems him a good
minister; but he was never eloquent, and now he is old, and in absolute
want. He told me himself that three hundred dollars was the most that he
had ever received in one year for preaching; and to get that he had to
serve four churches, two of them over thirty miles from his residence.
Several years he has realized less than half that sum; and never has he
been able to provide for his family as well as a common mechanic, or
even a day-laborer. Then there is the minister by whom Miss Ernest was
immersed. He has talents which, at the bar or in the forum, would place
him among the first men of the State. Few speakers can equal his
persuasive eloquence. He is popular as a preacher, and beloved as a man.
He is the pastor of a church which has in its membership several who
could each pay him five hundred dollars a year, and never feel it; but
they give him four hundred to preach to them twice a month, and he gets
about a hundred and fifty more from two other churches. Before he
entered the ministry, he had some property. He is a man of cultivated
taste; and his family have been accustomed to genteel society, and feel
that it is necessary to their happiness to have about them not merely
the bare necessaries, but some of the comforts, not to say the luxuries
of life. The consequence is, that he is every year drawing upon and
rapidly exhausting his patrimony; and should he live ten years, is
likely to be reduced to the same poverty with Mr. Doe; and these are but
instances of what is common, almost universal.”
“It may be, my friend, that you are correct in regard to this. I know
that the Baptists are a poor and obscure people, and I suppose they have
not the ability to provide very bountifully for their ministers.”
“It is not their poverty, my dear sir, but their parsimony. You will
find them _rich_ enough, but too _stingy_—that is the word, sir—too
_stingy_, too niggardly, too avaricious, too covetous, too selfish, to
provide for anybody but themselves. They _must have preaching_, and they
think they can’t do well without at least one sermon a month. So they
contrive to get that much for the least possible sum—usually not over
one cent a week for each church member; and then they call themselves
_generous_, and think they have conferred a great favor on the preacher
when they have doled out to him this pitiful sum.
“Now, Mr. Percy, if you are willing to live such a life yourself, and
subject Miss Ernest to all the sufferings and sorrows of disappointed
hope, degraded social position, and absolute penury, then marry her,
give up your lucrative profession, and become a Baptist preacher.”
“You make the picture dark indeed,” said Mr. Percy; “but I trust there
is some brighter view of it. I must talk with Mr. Courtney about this
subject—not that I have any hesitation about what I must do, but that I
may understand how it has come to pass that these disciples of Jesus are
so disregardful of his laws. As for myself, _I shall preach Christ’s
gospel, whether I am fed or starved_. I _must_ preach. I feel that God
has called me to this work; and woe is me if I draw back. I am not now
prepared to preach; but after my baptism I intend to devote my time to
such studies as will prepare me for it. And I do not feel that it can be
any half-way devotion that I must give to the ministry of salvation. I
will, God helping me, give it all my life, and _all the energies of all
my life_. I can endure poverty, I can endure hardships, I can—”
“Just stop one moment,” interrupted his friend. “Can you give up Miss
Ernest, or, what will to you seem worse, can you subject _her_ to
poverty, hardships, and contempt, when it is in your power to set her
among the highest? Answer this question to yourself before you act.”
Mr. Percy’s countenance fell. He had not seen the matter in this light.
He sat down by his table with a heavy heart, and began to calculate how
much he was already worth, and how long it would take him to realize a
sum which would secure the future Mrs. Percy a respectable income,
independent of what he might receive for his preaching.
The conclusion did not seem quite satisfactory, for he sighed deeply as
he looked up from the figures, and then slowly and abstractedly walked
over to Mrs. Ernest’s cottage.
Theodosia read in his face as he came in that there was something heavy
on his heart, and was not slow to find a way to induce him to tell her
what it was.
“You know. Theo., that I am to be baptized to-morrow and that the coming
Thursday is our anticipated wedding-day.”
“Certainly; and though that might make a sensible man look serious, I
don’t see why it should make you sad.”
“When you agreed to be my wife, I was a lawyer. I had a lucrative
business, which promised yearly still increasing returns. I did not
solicit your hand until I felt that I should have it in my power to
place you in that position in society which your accomplishments so fit
you to adorn. I loved you too well to desire that you should be a poor
man’s wife, though that poor man had been myself.”
“Well, Mr. Percy, I am very much obliged to you; and let me say that I
loved you too well to be anybody’s wife but yours, though he had been as
rich as Girard, and you as poor as Job, when he had lost every thing but
life. Is there any thing in that to make you sad?”
“But, my dear Theodosia, I have been led to feel that I must abandon my
profession, and with it all my hopes of wealth, or even of a comfortable
subsistence. I can easily submit to this for myself, but I have no right
to subject _you_ to want and obscurity.”
“Then I suppose you have, with many others, come to the conclusion that
no strictly honest Christian man can be successful as a lawyer?”
“No, no: the law, indeed, presents great temptations, but I know many an
honest lawyer. It is not because I have any objection to my present
profession, but because I am drawn so forcibly towards another, that I
feel compelled to give it up.”
“It is true, then,” said she, while a gleam of hope and joy flashed from
her eyes, and she leaned towards him as she spoke: “it is true that my
prayer is heard, and God has called you to become a minister of his
Word.”
“I have indeed been led to determine, as God shall open up the way for
me, to spend my life in preaching Jesus to the lost.”
“And did you fancy this would be sad news to me, that you came with such
a sorrowful face to tell me of it? It has been for weeks the great
desire of my heart, and the chief burden of my prayers.”
“But, my dear Theo., you do not consider that to be a Baptist minister
is to be _poor_—to spend a life of hardship and toil without
reward—almost, as I am told, without the means of comfortable
subsistence. I have lived long enough to know that the wants of life are
stern realities: they must be provided for. We have both of us been
accustomed to the enjoyment of some of even the elegances of social
life. It will be scarcely possible for us to live in comfort upon such a
sum as Baptist churches are accustomed to pay their ministers, even if I
should realize as much as the best of them and that I cannot look for.
What I have been thinking of is this: if I could give some five years to
the law, I might secure a sum sufficient for our comfort; and then I
could give myself entirely to the work of the Master.”
“And if in those five years souls should perish that you might have been
the instrument to save—what then?”
“It is that which perplexes me.”
“Will you permit me,” inquired she, “to advise you? I know that I have
no acquaintance with business; but one thing I am sure of, and that is,
duty must be done, let consequences be what they may.”
“But have not consequences something to do in determining what _is_
duty?”
“Surely they have; and if the loss of never-dying souls is likely to be
the consequence of your taking time to make a little fortune, it seems
to me you will not hesitate. As for me, I am not desirous to be rich. I
find more promises to the poor than to the wealthy, and great promises
to those who have abandoned houses and lands for Christ.”
“But Dr. Woodruff assures me that the Baptist churches do so little for
their ministers, that it is impossible for a family to live comfortably
upon the scanty pittance which they reluctantly give, rather as charity
than wages, for his self-denying labor.”
“What if the Doctor does say this? _Jesus Christ_ says, Lay not up for
yourself treasure upon earth. He says, Take no thought what you shall
eat or what you shall drink, for our Heavenly Father knoweth that we
have need of these things; and He who feeds the sparrows, and clothes
the lilies, will also care for us.”
“But I don’t feel as though I can trust myself, and especially yourself,
to the tender mercies of these Baptist churches; though I am sure the
facts can’t be quite so bad as my friend represented them.”
“But don’t you see, Mr. Percy, that _we don’t have to trust to THE
CHURCHES, but to our Father in heaven_, who holds the hearts of all men
in his hands? The silver is his, and the gold also; and the cattle upon
a thousand hills. Let us humbly try to do _his_ will, and HE will see to
it that we have all we need.”
“So you are willing to risk all, and really think I ought to enter at
once upon this work?”
“Why no, Mr. Percy, I am not willing to _risk_ any thing. I have _God’s
promise_ that we shall be provided for; and it is not _risking_ any
thing to believe that God tells the truth, and to take him at his word.
We will do what he requires, and he will do what he has promised. It
_can’t be otherwise_.”
“But see how the churches have left good old Mr. Doe to pine in poverty,
after he has given his life to their service.”
“Yes, I have heard of that. It may be that the churches have done wrong;
but if old Brother Doe has trusted in God, he is not the loser by his
poverty. All things are working together for his good. We may be left to
suffer poverty also. It was no more than Jesus did for us; and if it
should be so, we may rejoice, even in our poverty, that we are permitted
to _suffer_ for his sake; for the apostle says, if we _suffer_ with him,
we shall also be _glorified_ with him.”
“May God bless you, my angel of hope and love! Would that I had your
faith! But it shall be as you suggest. _I will give up all_—I will
proclaim _Christ’s gospel_, and _trust Christ_ for the results. It was
not for myself, but on your account that I hesitated; but you are the
helper of my weakness. I will try to trust in God, as you do. But there
is one thing yet which troubles me. The facts related to me by Dr.
Woodruff in regard to the parsimony of these Baptist churches in the
support of their ministry, have raised in my mind a _doubt_—in fact, a
serious doubt—whether they are, after all, the churches of Jesus
Christ.”
“How so?”
“The Lord Jesus, both by his personal teachings and by the teachings of
his Spirit, inculcated liberality. _His_ people must be a _liberal_
people. He charged them again and again to _give_; instructed them to
labor, working with their hands; not that they might lay up wealth, but
that they might have something to _give_ to him that needeth. He warned
them not to lay up their treasures on the earth, and assured them that
they could not serve God and money, (for that is the meaning of
‘Mammon.’) He told them that it was more blessed to _give_ than to
receive; that the ministers of his gospel were worthy of their _hire_;
that those who preached the gospel should live of the gospel; that those
who ministered in spiritual things should be ministered unto in carnal
things; and now, in view of all this, when I find a church that is
willing to enjoy the labors and instructions of a minister of Jesus
without return, or one so avaricious as to give only the _very smallest
pittance_ that will secure a sermon once a month, while they are
abundantly able to provide comfortably for a pastors support, I can’t
help thinking _it is not his church_; and I would not like to be
connected with it, either as a member or a minister.”
“It is probable that you do not yet know all the facts in regard to this
matter. You have beard one side; Mr. Courtney, or some other Baptist of
experience and observation, could tell you the other. As for our little
church, it has but just now been organized; and you know very well it is
_unable_ to do much, and so it may be with many others. Let this thought
pass till you get more accurate information; and now tell me by what
means you have been led to feel that you must give yourself to the
ministry.”[4]
“I hardly know when or how this conviction came into my mind: but from
the time I found myself trusting in Jesus as a lost and helpless sinner,
and felt that I was saved by his abounding goodness and almighty power,
I gave myself to him. Since then I have felt that I am not my own, but
His who died to save me; I must live, not for myself, but for him; I
must not do what is desirable to myself, but what is pleasing to him.
When I was beginning to recover from that sickness which prostrated me
so suddenly, I became conscious of an impression upon my mind that if I
recovered I must give myself to the work of the ministry. At first I
cast aside the thought as utterly preposterous. I had spent my youth and
early manhood in preparing for another occupation, with which I had no
reason to be dissatisfied, and upon which I had already entered: why
should I now change all my plans? But the impression continually
returned: it came with greater and greater power. I tried to reason it
away, but still I _felt_ that I must preach; and at length, since I have
been entirely restored, I find my highest reason taking sides with the
feeling. Souls are perishing; God has instituted the ministry as one
means—perhaps the chief means—of bringing them to salvation; I have the
capacity to study and to teach; I can preach, and if I can I _must_
preach, and thus do what I can to make known to the lost the glorious
gospel of the Son of God.
“But I had never thought until to-day of _all_ the difficulties in the
way of doing so. I did not realize till now that to become a minister of
the gospel was to place my ear to the door-post, and have it bored, in
token of perpetual servitude. I never felt till to-day that by
determining to be a minister among the Baptists I resigned all hope not
only of preferment and honor—not only of wealth and ease, but of even
what will to us be the comforts, almost the necessaries, of life. I
never felt till to-day that to be a minister was not only to be _poor_,
but to be _dependent_; to be regarded by the churches and my brethren
not as a laborer worthy of his _hire_, but as a needy pensioner, not
upon their bounty, but upon their parsimony; to feel that when I had
abandoned wealth and fame and ease and comfort for their sake and the
gospel’s, that they would but regard me as an object of their
_charity_—a fit subject for their _alms_. But even this I did not shrink
from till I thought of you. I could endure it for myself; but how can I
see you subjected to such things?”
“O, don’t be troubled about me: our Heavenly Father will see to it that
have no sorrow to endure, no hardship to bear, that is not for my good.
Does he not say that all things shall work together for the good of them
that love him? And what if we should suffer all these things? Has he not
bidden us, having merely food and raiment, therewith to be content; and
told us that these light afflictions, which are but for a moment, shall
work out for us a far more exceeding and eternal _weight_ of glory? We
do not need the comforts of the world when we have the joys of his
salvation. We do not need the honors of the world when we have that
honor which cometh from God only.”
“Well, my darling comforter, let it be so. We will enter upon this work
of saving souls together: together we will labor, together we will
study, together we will pray, and you shall teach me how to walk by
faith and not by sight, and to endure as seeing HIM who is invisible.”
The evening of the next Sabbath had been appointed for his baptism. The
crowd that gathered on the river-bank would probably have been larger
than had ever assembled there on a similar occasion, but that a sudden
shower of rain shut many up at home, and scattered most of those who had
come out. He walked firmly and calmly into the water, was baptized, and
came up out of the water, but gave no expression to his thoughts or
feelings. Except the simple baptismal hymn which the brethren and
sisters sang as they were going down the bank, all was silence. Some
hard hands grasped his most heartily as he came up; but his formal
recognition as a church member was postponed until the regular
prayer-meeting on Tuesday night.
At that time, after the ordinary exercises of singing and prayer, Mr.
Courtney, who had been created one of the deacons of the church when it
was organized a few weeks before, requested the brethren to resolve
themselves into a church meeting for the transaction of certain
business. This was done by calling one of the deacons to preside, (there
being no pastor,) singing a verse or two of a familiar hymn, and
invoking the presence and sanction of the Master of assemblies.
Mr. Courtney then suggested that Brother Percy should now be formally
recognized as a member of that church by extending to him the right hand
of fellowship, which they had no good opportunity to give him at the
water’s side.
Mr. Percy took his stand in a convenient place, and the deacons first,
and then the brethren and the sisters, passed by in regular order, and
each gave to him the hand of fellowship Nor was this a mere form. He saw
tears in many eyes. He saw deep feeling upon almost every face, and
could not help realizing that with their hands they gave their _hearts_
in Christian love. When this was done, Mr. Courtney arose and spoke
somewhat as follows:
“Brethren and sisters:—I have learned that our young brother whom we
have just received has felt himself called to the work of the ministry.
It is proper for the church to give her sanction to that call, if she
should think it in fact the call of God. In order that we may have an
opportunity to judge in reference to this point, and learn for ourselves
concerning his aptness to teach, I move you that our brother Percy be
requested to exercise his gifts among us. Though but recently made one
of our company, we have long known him as an upright and moral man. Some
of us know that, like Timothy, he has been taught the Scriptures from a
child and now that he has been taught of the Spirit, we may reasonably
expect that he may be able to teach others. He is not like the
‘_novice_,’ newly converted from heathenism, for he has been thoroughly
instructed in the doctrines and precepts of our holy religion; and
though it will be proper for him to make further proof of his call
before he can be _ordained to the ministry_, yet I conceive there will
be no impropriety in his entering at once upon the work of calling
sinners to repentance. Shall we invite him to proclaim the gospel in our
hearing on next Sabbath, that we may have an opportunity to understand
the nature of his gifts?”
As the vote was about to be taken, Mr. Percy arose and said, “Excuse me,
brethren: I have indeed felt that it is my duty to preach Christ’s
gospel. Nay, I feel that ‘woe is me if I preach not the gospel;’ and in
my purpose I have already given myself up solely to this work. But I am
not _ready_ to enter upon those duties now. I need a course of careful
study. I must read some system of divinity. I acknowledge to you that,
so far as I can now remember, I have never read a strictly theological
book. I am, therefore, utterly unprepared at __this time to preach the
glorious gospel of our blessed Lord. But by God’s mercy I hope soon to
obtain the needful qualifications, if intense study and an earnest
desire for knowledge can secure them.”
“Our brother,” replied Mr. Courtney, “mistakes our purpose. We do not
propose now to _ordain_ him an _elder_, or, what is the same thing, a
_bishop_. We need some proof of his call of God before we can do that.
But we propose merely to ask and authorize him to show, by teaching us,
his capacity to teach, and his qualifications for the work to which he
thinks that God has called him. Let him study as diligently as he will,
it will not hinder his studies to tell us from week to week what he has
learned. But we trust that he will remember that _our_ book of divinity
is the _Bible_, and _our_ theology is all to be found in that one
comprehensive work. Our gospel is Christ, and him crucified, with those
doctrines and precepts which gather of necessity around this one great
centre of our faith and hope. Let him take the New Testament, and
_study_ (_not merely read_) the teachings of Christ and the apostles,
until his very soul is imbued with their meaning, and baptized in their
spirit, and then come and tell to us what they have taught to him, and
he will be just such a teacher as many of us are just now needing.”
The church invited him to speak to them on the next Sabbath; and after
his previous convictions of duty, he did not dare to refuse.
This was on Tuesday night. On Thursday there was a little company of
friends gathered in Mrs. Ernest’s little parlor, and Miss Theodosia
Ernest became Mrs. Percy.
On Sabbath morning, with many fears, and a heart crying within him, “Who
is sufficient for these things?” Mr. Percy preached his first sermon.
His mind was strong, and had been thoroughly trained to close
investigation and independent thought. His mother had in his childhood
made him familiar with the letter of the Scriptures. And now that the
Master himself had in his experience taught him their spirit and their
power, it is not to be wondered at that from the very first he proved a
most acceptable expounder of Christian truth to the earnest-hearted but
mostly uneducated people who composed his congregations. They were
without a pastor: and, by a sort of unexpressed but mutual
understanding, he became from that time forth their minister, until the
time had passed which was required to close up his legal business.
Meantime he had been a diligent student of the mysteries of the gospel.
He felt that he had not time to read through the ponderous tomes of what
are called systems of divinity. By the advice of Mr. Courtney, he took a
shorter, if not a surer way to learn the truth. He knew that he was to
teach the things which were contained in _one_ Book. He made that Book
his daily _study_. He not merely read, but _searched_ the Scriptures
daily. He selected _subjects_ instead of texts as the basis of his
discourses; and when he had chosen his subject, he took his concordance
and gathered all the passages which were fitted to throw any light upon
it. These texts he copied out upon a sheet of paper, so that he might
have them all before him at a glance. He analyzed and classified them to
get the distinctive meaning of each. Then he referred to several of the
best commentators, and made his mind familiar with their exposition and
criticisms, not on the single verse which was to be nominally the text
of his discourse, but upon all the sometimes numerous passages connected
with his subject. And when he felt that he had thus learned the
teachings of the Holy Word, he was prepared to bring forth his treasures
from an abundant storehouse, not crammed with “learned _lumber_ of the
brain,” but full of things useful to the edifying of those who wished to
know what the Master teaches in his Word. Thus he studied, and thus he
preached; and God was pleased to bless his ministry, from the very
first, to the conviction and conversion of sinners, and the comforting
and building up of the saints.
About the time he closed his business, and was prepared to give himself
entirely to the work of the gospel, he received a call from a church in
one of the growing little cities of the South-west, and was ordained as
their elder, or bishop, and pastor. In the intensity of his early zeal,
he had overtasked his powers and undermined his health; and, at the
earnest solicitation of his people, had left them for a few weeks, to
recuperate his failing strength by a visit to the hill country of
Tennessee.
THIRD DAY’S TRAVEL.
In which the precise difference which exists between the kingdom of
Christ and the Church of Christ is still further developed, and some
other remarkable things concerning the Church are brought to light.
WHEN the company had assembled the next morning, the Doctor introduced
the conversation thus:
“I think, sir, that you made a distinction yesterday between the
_Church_ of Christ and the _kingdom_ of Christ, in such a way that you
considered the Church as a local organization, established for a
particular purpose _within_ the kingdom—a part of the apparatus or
machinery of the kingdom, if I may speak so.”
“You did not far mistake my meaning,” replied Mr. Courtney; “but as this
idea is fundamental to the object which we have before us to-day, let me
explain a little more particularly.
“We have seen that ‘The kingdom of Christ,’ ‘The kingdom of God,’ and
‘The kingdom of Heaven,’ as employed in the New Testament, are
synonymous terms, and are used to designate that institution which was
set up by Christ while he was upon the earth. It was not the Jewish
kingdom, for the Jewish prophets told of it as something yet to come. It
was not in being yet when Christ appeared, for he dated it from the
preaching of John. It was _then_ that the time was fulfilled, and the
kingdom of God was set up. _This kingdom was that economy of separation
or assortment into which the penitent and the believing who trusted in
Jesus as Messias the Saviour were introduced by baptism according to
Christ’s appointment._
“Those coming out from the mass, (whether Jews or Gentiles,) and openly,
by their own act, acknowledging him before the world in that significant
rite which he had instituted for the purpose, became his _visible
people_. They put on his livery; were called by his name; became
obedient to his laws; and he was thus, in sight of all the world, their
Lord and King. Now this kingdom was to continue to the end of time, and
to extend to all the world. Whenever and wherever any one should be
found repenting of sin, and trusting in Christ for salvation, he was
prepared to become a subject of this kingdom. It was proper that he
should be baptized, and thus become formally united with those of whom
the kingdom should consist. He was already a subject in his heart, and
was prepared to become one, at his own request, in fact and in form. But
without some such a formal recognition of the incoming members, there
would be no _visible_ distinction between _his_ people and the people of
the _world_. Some form was needful, and the King appointed _this_.
BAPTISM IS, THEREFORE, THE DOOR OF ENTRANCE INTO HIS VISIBLE KINGDOM.
_Those who have not entered by THIS door are not members of it._ They
may be _pious_: they may be _penitent_: they may be _believers_: they
may be the friends of the King: they may even be favorites of the King;
but until they have openly put on Christ, and _acknowledged_ him before
the world, (not in such a way as _they_ may think proper, but in the way
of HIS appointment,) they are not and should not be regarded as
belonging _to his VISIBLE kingdom_. To be a member of the Jewish
kingdom, one must not only be a man free from certain defects and
blemishes, and a worshipper of Israel’s God, but he-must also be
circumcised; so, to be a member of this new kingdom, one must not only
repent and believe, but he must also be baptized. The condition is
imperative and unconditional. There is no exception, and no room for
evasion. Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t say that baptism is essential
to _salvation_: THAT depends on penitence and faith: but baptism _is
essential_ to membership in _Christ’s visible kingdom_ upon the earth.
“The visible kingdom of Christ, therefore, (which is that we have been
talking of) _consists of all those who have openly professed their
penitence for sin and faith in Christ, and have then been baptized into
his name, in accordance with his appointment_. It is composed of these;
and it contains no _others_, simply because, according to the laws of
the King, these are _the indispensable_ requisites for membership.
“We now, I trust, understand what is meant by the kingdom, when spoken
of as a _visible_ organization; and if so, we are prepared to take
another step, and learn what is meant, in the Scriptures, by the
‘_Church_ of Christ.’
“Let me premise, however, that our English word church is a term of such
various and doubtful meaning, as it is commonly employed, that we must
define it before we use it, or else we shall soon find ourselves
embarrassed and confused by it. You know that it sometimes means the
_house_ where people worship, and sometimes the people who worship in
the house. Sometimes it is applied to a particular congregation of
professed Christians, and sometimes to all who hold to a particular set
of doctrines. Sometimes it applies to all of some particular persuasion
in some designated country, as the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, or
of the United States. Some writers use it to signify all those of every
name or order who _profess_ to believe in Christ; others limit it to the
special organization in connection with which they happen to be living.
It is therefore necessary for us, if we would ascertain what the
_Scriptures_ mean when _they_ use the word church, to go to _them_ for
its definition. Their use of it is definite, and easily understood: they
clearly explain themselves. The Greek word is _ekklesia_. It occurs in
the singular or plural number one hundred and fifteen times in the New
Testament; and is translated ‘church,’ in our version, in every place
but three. To obtain a correct conception of its scriptural meaning, we
must examine the passages where it occurs; but in doing this, we must
not forget that it _had a meaning_, as distinct and as well settled as
any other Greek word, before it was employed by Christ and his apostles;
and, consequently, they must have had regard to its original
signification when they employed and appropriated it. This is as true of
_ekklesia_ as it is of _baptisma_; and we must go to Greece for the
fundamental idea which both the words contain. They were both purely
Greek words; they originated among the Greeks, and their meaning was
fixed by the usage of the Greek language.”
“Please then tell us, Mr. Courtney, what was the Grecian usage in
reference to this word. What did it mean as a Greek would have employed
it, in speaking or writing to the Grecians?”
“You will understand it better,” said he, “if I tell you first its
origin. It was derived originally from another Greek word, ‘_ekkalein_,’
which signified _to call out from_. Now, you know the government of the
ancient cities of Greece was democratic; that is, it was exercised by
the qualified citizens assembled in a lawful meeting, for the
transaction of business. The meetings were called together by the
town-crier, and hence were named ‘_ekklesia_,’ the ‘_called out_;’ that
is, the assembly of qualified citizens called out from the mass of the
population. The same idea, or one very similar to it, is contained in
our English word _convocation_, when applied to an assembly called
together for some specific purpose. The Greek ‘_ekklesia_’ consisted of
certain individuals, who, when assembled and organized, constituted an
official body for the transaction of such business as might come before
them. It was not merely an assembly, but an _official_ assembly,
consisting of persons specifically qualified, and who had each his
specific rights and duties as a member of the _ekklesia_. It was not
every resident in the city who was, strictly speaking, a citizen; nor
was it every citizen who was a member of the _ekklesia_ to which was
intrusted the management of public business; but the _ekklesia_ were
called out from the mass. The word was perhaps sometimes, though rarely,
applied to ordinary and unofficial meetings. It seems to be so used in
one case by Luke, (Acts xix. 32,) to designate the _irregular and
riotous assembly_ which rushed into the public hall called in the Greek,
the ‘theatron;’ and the most part of whom knew not why they had come
together. But a careful and critical examination of the whole context in
the original shows that here, as elsewhere, its common and restricted
meaning is preserved; for the word _ekklesia_, rendered assembly in the
thirty-second verse, is not the same that is rendered ‘_people_,’ in the
twenty-sixth verse, nor that rendered ‘_the people_,’ in the thirtieth;
nor did it apply to the noisy rabble whom the town clerk (the recorder
or presiding officer of the _ekklesia_) at last succeeded in appeasing,
after they had been for two long hours screeching the praises of Diana.
But when the riot began, and the city was aroused, the ‘_ekklesia_’
probably rushed in haste, and in an _irregular manner_, to their place
of meeting, the _theatron_. The populace entered with them; and the
tumult was so great, that the _ekklesia_ could not be properly
organized: it was therefore confused and illegal. Hence the recorder
says, in the thirty-ninth verse, after explaining that the _present_
business belonged rather to the bench of Roman deputies than to
them—‘But if ye inquire concerning _other_ matters, it shall be
determined in a _lawful_ (_ekklesia_) assembly;’ that is, in a regularly
adjourned or regularly called meeting of the _ekklesia_; and then, in
the fortieth verse, when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the
_ekklesia_.
“These three are the only places in which the word, as used in the New
Testament, is not translated church. Here it is rendered assembly; and
commonly, at that time, it signified an _official_ and _organized_
assembly.
“It would have been better translated by _assembly_ than by church, in
Acts vii. 38, when Stephen is speaking of the rebellious Jews who
rejected Moses and thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back
to Egypt. It was ‘an assembly in the wilderness’—perhaps an _organized_,
official assembly—called together to transact the public business, or
deliberate on the affairs of the nation; but it was no _Church of
Christ_. Every assembly was not an _ekklesia_, nor was every _ekklesia_
an _ekklesia_ of Christ.”
“I was just going to ask,” said Mrs. Percy, “whether every religious
assembly would not, according to your account of the matter, be called a
Christian Church?”
“Have a little patience, madam. We have now seen the origin of the word,
and the meaning which it had when Christ adopted it and applied it to
his institution. It yet remains to see to what sort of an institution it
was _that he applied it_. It must have been an _assembly_; and this
assembly must have consisted of those chosen or _called_ to a
participation in its privileges, otherwise there would be an
inappropriateness in the name, which signified the _called assembly_.
The _literal_ meaning, therefore, of the ‘_ekklesia_ of Christ,’
rendered in our Bible the ‘Church of Christ,’ could be no other than the
official, or called _assembly of Jesus Christ_. It was an _assembly of
HIS people_, meeting in HIS name, and transacting business by HIS
authority. Not some invisible abstraction, but an actual business-doing
_assembly_, to whom an injured brother might go and tell his grievance;
and whose decision in the case should be final and conclusive. (Matt.
xviii. 15–18.)
“Now, if you want to know the character and qualifications of the
members of this official assembly of Jesus Christ: if you want to know
whether they were converted or unconverted, baptized or unbaptized:
whether they were men and women grown, or little puling babes, you have
only to look at _the pattern_ which was modelled by Christ himself; and
of which we have a description in the Acts of the Apostles, which,
though brief, is so minute and comprehensive as not to leave any
essential feature out of view.”
“Please show us that description, Mr. Courtney. It is just what I have
beer looking for,” said Dr. Thinkwell.
“Here is the most of it, sir, in the first few chapters. Luke begins
this history by reminding his friend Theophilus that he had previously
written to him, giving an account of all that Jesus did while he
_remained upon the earth_. He tells him that Christ, after his
resurrection, spent some forty days with the apostles, instructing then:
in the things pertaining to the kingdom of God; and then, having charged
them to remain together in Jerusalem till they should receive the
promised influences of the Holy Spirit, he ascended up to heaven. After
this, some ten days, until the feast of Pentecost, were spent in prayer
by them, and the women and the brethren of the Lord, in a large
upper-room, somewhere in the city. Some time during these ten days Peter
stood up in the midst of the assembly and suggested an item of business.
It seems that this assembly consisted of certain specified and
recognized persons, who were known by name, and, most probably,
regularly enrolled; for ‘the number of the _names_ together was about
one hundred and twenty.’ (15th verse.) These hundred and twenty, you
will observe, were all disciples: ‘Peter stood up in the midst of the
disciples.’ They had, therefore, been taught; and they were also
_praying_ people. They were men and women. They had all an equal voice
in the business, for ‘_they_’ (not Peter) nominated the candidates; and,
after prayer for heavenly guidance, they cast their ‘lots,’ and Matthias
was elected.[5]
“Here we have the first account of one of these chosen assemblies
regularly organized _and doing business_ in the name of Christ. To these
disciples, after the Spirit was poured out upon the day of Pentecost,
three thousand more were added. How were they added? ‘_They gladly
received the word, AND WERE BAPTIZED._’ After their baptism, ‘they
continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in
breaking of bread and in prayers;’ ‘and the Lord added daily to the
_ekklesia_ such as should be saved.’ In the fifth chapter we read that
at the death of Ananias and Sapphira great fear came upon all the
_ekklesia_. It was _this_ _ekklesia_ that from their own number chose
the deacons to attend to the distribution of the provisions for the
poor. It was this _ekklesia_ in which prayer was made for Peter without
ceasing when he was thrown into the prison. This _ekklesia_, in Acts
viii. 1, is more specifically designated as the ‘_ekklesia_ which was at
Jerusalem.’ It was, therefore, a _local_ and limited organization. It
was _one_ assembly, and no more. It was the first and oldest of the many
Churches which were formed during the lifetime of the apostles. It was
the Church in which they had their membership; and on these accounts its
advice was sought, and its decisions regarded as of peculiar value, but
_it never claimed any superiority_ over the other Churches which were
organized upon the same model and by the same authority.
“Here, then, is the embodiment of the scriptural idea of a Church of
Jesus Christ. It is an assembly of those who have repented of sin,
believed on Christ, and then have been baptized: who meet together in
regular order to break the bread and drink the wine in his remembrance,
and to transact business in his name.
“The Church at Jerusalem was no more a Church than was ‘the Church at
Antioch,’ or the ‘Church in Ephesus,’ or ‘the church of God in Corinth,’
or ‘the Church of the Laodiceans.’ Each of these was a separate,
distinct, and independent organization. We find no record of such an
‘establishment’ as the Church of Judea; but we read of the ‘Churches
throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria:’ so we read of ‘the
Churches of Macedonia,’ ‘the Churches of Galatia,’ and ‘the Churches of
Asia.’ There are no _national_ Churches. There are no _provincial_
Churches. There are no _branches_ of the Church at Jerusalem, or any
other Church. No Church is ever called a _part_ of any other Church.
Each _ekklesia_ was complete in itself. It was the _assembly_ which
Christ had called out from the world, in the place where it was located.
It was, therefore, called the ‘_ekklesia_’—the assembly of Jesus Christ
in such or such a place. It is this, and nothing more.”
“I wish it were possible for us,” said Mrs. Percy, “to turn at once to
each place where the word is found and read it in its connection. I
always feel more certain that I know the truth when I have examined into
the matter _for myself_.”
“It is not only possible, but very easy to gratify your desire madam. I
have a Greek concordance in my trunk, and we can in a few minutes find
every single passage in which the word _ekklesia_ occurs.”
He went to his state-room, and presently returned with the convenient
volume.
“Now,” said he, “take the Bible, and find the places as point them out.
But first, I will remark that I have been over this ground more than
once before this, and can, therefore, suggest a classification of these
passages which will assist us in our endeavor to arrive at the strict
and actual signification of the word, as it is used by the New Testament
writers. For instance, it is used three times, Acts xix. 32, 39, 41, in
reference to the assembly which gathered in the city of Ephesus, about
the matter of Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen. These places we have
already seen. It means here simply a secular assembly, and has no sort
of reference to a religious institution. Then it occurs twice where it
refers to a _Jewish_ assembly—first in Acts vii. 38, where Stephen
informs the Jews that Moses was in the ‘_ekklesia_’ in the wilderness
with the angel that spake unto him in the Mount Sinai, and with our
fathers, who received the lively oracles to give unto us. That
‘_ekklesia_,’ however, was not Christ’s _ekklesia_. It was composed of
those ‘who would not obey:’ (verse 39:) who ‘made a calf and worshipped
it:’ (verse 41:) whom ‘God turned from and gave them up to worship the
hosts of heaven;’ (verse 42;) and who were just such rebels as the
persecutors whom Stephen was then addressing; for in verse 51, he says:
‘Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always
resist the Holy Ghost: _as your fathers did, so do ye_.’ The other
passage in which it refers to a Jewish assembly is Hebrews ii. 12: ‘In
the midst of the church will I sing praise of thee.’ This is merely a
quotation from Psalm xxii. 22, where it is rendered _congregation_ ‘In
the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.’
“We have now one hundred and ten places remaining in which the word
refers in some sense to the Christian institution. In most of these you
will find it signifies literally and unequivocally a _local assembly of
Christ’s disciples_, such as we have seen exemplified in the ‘Church
which was at Jerusalem.’ The first two of these are in Matthew xviii.
17: ‘If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto _the Church_; but if
he neglect to hear _the Church_, let him be unto thee as an heathen man
and a publican.’ This was a local body. If it had not been, the
aggrieved disciple could not know where to find it, or how to address
it. The offender was a brother, and the two or three whom he should take
for witnesses were also brethren in this Church. Here is the first and
fundamental law of Church authority and discipline. The brethren were to
live together in love and harmony; but if one felt himself aggrieved, he
should first go and try the effect of a personal interview: if this
should fail to restore a right state of feeling, take two or three of
the brethren and talk the matter over in their presence. If this should
fail, then he should call the matter up before the _ekklesia_—the body
of disciples _assembled_ in their official capacity, to transact
business in the name of Christ—and from their decision there should be
no appeal. That such was the understanding of the apostles, and such the
practice of the Churches founded by them, we will see before we have
gone through with all these texts. It will be manifest that it was _the
Church_, (‘the _ekklesia_,’) the _local_ society of Christians assembled
for business, not a ‘session,’ or ‘consistory,’ or ‘presbytery,’ or
‘synod,’ or ‘conference,’ much less a ‘class-leader,’ or ‘preacher,’
‘deacon,’ ‘elder,’ ‘priest,’ or ‘bishop,’ to whom this power was
intrusted, and by whom it was exercised. But let us go on. You will find
in the next place Acts ii. 47, that the first Church was already
organized, and ‘the Lord was adding to it daily such as should be
saved.’ This was the local body, the number of the names in which was, a
few days before, about one hundred and twenty; but to which three
thousand had been added on the day of Pentecost, and which continued to
hold daily meetings in the temple, and from house to house, praising
God, and having favor with all the people.
“In the next place, Acts v. 11, we read that when Peter had so signally
punished the wicked covetousness and falsehood of Ananias and his wife,
‘Great fear came upon all the Church, and upon as many as heard these
things.’ And the next time it is mentioned, Acts viii. 1, even before
any other similar society is organized, as if to show at once and for
ever that each _ekklesia_ was to be separate and distinct from every
other as being complete within itself, this Church is specifically
designated as the ‘Church which was at Jerusalem.’ At that time there
was a great persecution against the ‘Church _which was at Jerusalem_.’
And then in the third verse, ‘As for Saul, he made havoc of the Church:’
that is, the Church at Jerusalem, for he had not yet gone to Damascus,
or left the city of Jerusalem.
“Now turn to the next chapter, Acts ix. 31, and you will see this idea
further developed. The ‘Church which was at Jerusalem’ no longer stood
alone. It was no longer _the Church_. It was the _first Church_. It was
the _model Church_. It was that in which the idea of Christ, when he
spake of his Church, was first actually embodied and exemplified. It was
the pattern after which other churches were to be fashioned and to which
in every essential particular they must conform. But it was not the
_only_ Church: it was one of a multitude, for here we read, ‘Then had
the _Churches_ rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, and
were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of
the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.’
“This is remarkable. We do not read that the Church of Jerusalem had
extended herself, and had become the _Church of Judea_, or the _Church
of Galilee_, or the _Church of Samaria_. Neither here nor anywhere do we
read of a _territorial_ or a _provincial_ Church. Nowhere is there a
word about any great ‘establishment,’ comprising in its limits a
multitude of local societies, and called ‘_the Church_,’ like the
Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the
Lutheran Church, etc. Each local organization was a Church complete
within itself. Each was as much a Church as any other. Each was
independent of all others. But this fact will be still more manifest as
we proceed. The next place is Acts xi. 22, where the Church in Jerusalem
is again specially designated: When tidings of these things came to the
ears of _the Church which was in Jerusalem_, they sent forth Barnabas,
that he should go as far as Antioch.
“Barnabas went first to Tarsus, Paul’s native city; and when he had
found the new disciple, he brought him on to Antioch; and for a whole
year you read (verse 26) that these two men ‘assembled with _the Church_
in that city, and taught much people.’ This Church appears to have been
a missionary Church as well as that at Jerusalem; for after Paul and
Barnabas had preached to them a year or so, they sent them away to found
new churches in other places, as you may see in the thirteenth chapter.
But the next place where the word Church (_ekklesia_) occurs is the
first verse of the twelfth chapter, where the history returns to the
‘Church which was at Jerusalem,’ and informs us that Herod the king
stretched forth his hands to vex certain of _the Church_, and killed
James and imprisoned Peter; and in the fifth verse, that ‘Prayer was
made without ceasing _in the Church_ unto God for him.’ This does not
mean in the _building_ or edifice in which they met for worship, for
history informs us that the Christians _had no such buildings_ for some
two hundred years after this, but continued to meet from house to house,
or in the Jewish synagogues, or wherever they might. And the word
(ekklesia) is _never_ used in the New Testament, or any other Greek book
written before or during the time of the apostles, to signify a house or
building. Prayer was made in the _assembly of the disciples_. This was
Christ’s Church which was at Jerusalem.
“The history then goes back to Antioch, and we read of ‘_the Church that
was in Antioch_,’ as we have several times read of ‘the Church that was
in Jerusalem.’ There were prophets in this Church, and the Church
recognized their authority, and acted in accordance with their
instructions, and sent out Paul and Barnabas on a missionary tour. They
went as far as Derbe, and then returned over the ground they had passed,
‘confirming the souls of the disciples’ they had made, ‘exhorting them
to continue in the faith;’ ‘and when they had ordained them elders (Acts
xiv. 23) _in every Church_, and had prayed with fasting, they commended
them to the Lord on whom they believed.’ Then after a time they came
again to Antioch, and reported their work. They gathered _the Church_
together (verse 27) and rehearsed all that God had done with them, and
how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
“But when certain Jews came to Antioch and taught that the Gentile
brethren must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, Paul and
Barnabas had much controversy with them, and it was determined to have
the opinion of the apostles and elders, who, having the spirit of
inspiration, were able to decide the question authoritatively, and that
for this purpose Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem. They were
brought on their way by _the Church_ at Antioch, (verse 3,) and were
joyfully received by the _Church at Jerusalem_, (verse 4,) and by the
apostles and elders. When the apostles and elders came together to
consider of the business, it seems that it was in a great Church
meeting, for (verse 12) _all the multitude_ kept silence and gave
audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God
had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And when they had finished their
narrative, James made a short speech about the business in hand, and
then (verse 22) we read that it pleased the apostles and elders, with
_the whole_ (_ekklesia_) _Church_, to send chosen men of their own
company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
“That was a wise precaution; for as Paul and Barnabas were known to be
bitter opponents of the Judaizing teachers, those men might say, in the
absence of such witnesses, that they had perverted or misrepresented the
decision of the apostles and elders.”
“But, my dear sir,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “do you not see in the very fact
that Antioch sent to Jerusalem about this matter, a recognition of the
superior authority of the Church at Jerusalem? This fact alone must for
ever set aside your theory of Church independence. Antioch brethren
disagree: the contention grows so strong that it is like to distract and
divide the Church. They do not decide for themselves, but send to a
distant city to _another_ Church, and ask it to determine for them. Now
what possible necessity for this if the Church at Antioch was entirely
the equal of the Church at Jerusalem, and just as competent to decide
upon any question of faith or practice?”
“Read the twenty-fourth verse, Doctor, and you will see one reason, if
not the only reason, why Antioch asked of why Jerusalem gave the advice:
‘Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out _from us_ have
troubled you with words, subverting your souls, and saying that ye must
be circumcised and keep the law; _to whom WE gave no such commandment_.’
These teachers had come from Jerusalem They had been members of the
_Jerusalem Church_. They claimed to speak by the _authority of the
apostles_, and doubtless to conform to the practice of _that Church_,
which, as we have already seen, was the _model_ by which others were to
be fashioned.
“Nothing could be more natural and proper, therefore, than to send to
Jerusalem to inquire _if these things were so_? _had_ the apostles so
decreed? _was_ this the custom of that Church? But besides this, you
will observe that although the apostles and elders associated the whole
Church which was at Jerusalem with them in their consultations and in
their letter, yet the Church at Antioch did _not_ send to the _Church_
at Jerusalem, but to the ‘_apostles and elders_,’ (verse 2.) The
apostles were everywhere recognized as speaking by Divine authority, and
as fully authorized by Christ to set in order all things relating to his
kingdom. The _apostles_ had the power without the elders and without the
Church. Any one of them had the power without the advice or authority of
the others to decide such questions as these, and it was _their_
decision that was asked for. But to show how little they were like
_modern bishops_—how careful they were to shun even the appearance of
lording it over God’s heritage—they called the brethren of their own
Church into their council, and issued their decision not only in their
own name, but in that of the brethren, taking care, however, to rest
_its binding force_ upon the fact that it seemed good to the _Holy
Ghost_ and to us (verse 28) to lay on you no greater burden than these
necessary things, etc.”
“I see, sir, that you are correct. Go on with the texts.”
“You will find the next one, Mrs. Percy, in the last verse 41st of this
same chapter: ‘He went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the
_Churches_.’ In the 4th verse of the next chapter, (xvi.,) you have some
further light upon this decision of the apostles. It is there distinctly
recognized, not as the decrees of the _Church_ at Jerusalem, but of the
_apostles and elders_ which were at Jerusalem. In the 5th, you learn
that the _Churches_ were established in the faith, and increased in
number daily.
“From Acts xviii. 22, we learn that there was _a Church_ at Caesarea.
Paul landed there, went up and saluted the Church, and then went on to
Antioch. From Acts xx. 17, we learn that Paul sent to Ephesus while he
was at Miletus, and called together the elders of _the Church_, whom he
addressed in that most pathetic and sublime speech of which the 28th
verse is a part: ‘Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the
flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, (literally
_bishops_,) to feed _the Church of God_, which he hath purchased with
his own blood.’ This Church must have been the Church at Ephesus, as
that was the only flock of which they could be considered as the
shepherds or overseers. There is no other place where the word occurs in
the Acts of the Apostles; so you may now turn to Romans xvi., where, in
the 1st verse, Phœbe is called a sister, and the servant of _the Church_
which is at Cenchrea. In the 4th verse, Paul speaks of ‘_all the
Churches_ of the Gentiles.’ In the 5th, of _the Church_ that is in the
house of Aquila and Priscilla. To the 10th, he says the _Churches of
Christ_ give salutation to the Roman Christians; and in the 22d, he
calls Gaius not only _his_ host, but that of the _whole Church_, by
which I suppose he means either that his house was open to every Church
member who would visit him; or, more probably, that the ‘_ekklesia_’ met
at his house for worship and business.”
“Dear me,” exclaimed a lady, with a sigh, “I hope you are nearly through
with this long catalogue of texts. I am getting heartily tired of
hearing the same thing over and over again; and I am sure, if your
object was to show that a scriptural Church was a _local and independent
corporation_, you have proved it more than twenty times. Why shall we
not take that point as fixed and settled, and go on to something else?”
“O no,” replied Mrs. Percy, “I am greatly interested in this. I have
never before made a careful examination of what really is the scriptural
idea contained in this word; and as a consequence, my mind has been
confused when thinking or speaking or reading about it. It is true, we
have now one of the ideas; but it yet remains to be seen if we have them
_all_. The word is used in _many_ places in this sense; but is it not
used in _some_ places in some _other_ sense? I cannot be _certain_ about
it till we have examined _every place_; and I am sure it will save time
and trouble in our future study to get this lesson perfectly while it is
before us. So, Mr. Courtney, please tell us the next place.”
“It is in the 1st verse of the first chapter of First Corinthians; and
as your friend seems anxious to get through with this dry business as
fast as possible, we may group with this a number of others of the same
sort. It is the address or direction, so to speak, of this letter to the
Corinthians: ‘To the Church (_ekklesia_) of God which is at Corinth.’
The address of the second letter is in the same style. That to the
Galatians is addressed to the _Churches_ of Galatia; and those to the
Thessalonians are addressed to _the Church_ of the Thessalonians. This,
you see, disposes of five places at a word. In the fourth chapter of
First Corinthians, 17th verse, Paul says he has sent Timothy to bring to
their remembrance his ways which are in Christ, as he teaches everywhere
in _every_ (‘_ekklesia_’) _Church_. In the sixth chapter, 4th verse, he
tells them that it would be better to set the least esteemed members of
_the Church_ to arbitrate worldly matters, than to go to law before
unbelievers: seventh chapter, 17th verse, is the conclusion of his
directions about living with unbelieving consorts, at the close of which
he says that this is what he ordains in _all the Churches_: tenth
chapter, 32d verse, ‘Give no offence to the Jews or to the Gentiles, or
to the _Church of God_:’ eleventh chapter, 16th verse, ‘We have no such
custom, neither _the Churches_ of God;’ 18th verse, ‘When ye come
together in the _Church_ (_ekklesia_) there be divisions among you;’ 22d
verse, ‘What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye the
_ekklesia_ of God, and shame them that have not?’ twelfth chapter, 28th
verse, ‘God hath set in the _ekklesia_, first, apostles; secondarily,
prophets,’ etc.: fourteenth chapter, 4th and 5th verses, ‘He that
speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth _himself_, but he that
prophesieth edifieth _the Church_ (_ekklesia_). Greater is he that
prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret that
the Church may receive edifying;’ 12th verse, ‘Seek ye that ye may
excel, to the edifying _of the Church_:’ 19th verse, ‘In _the Church_ I
had rather speak five words with my understanding, that with my voice I
might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue;’
23d verse, ‘If therefore the _whole Church_ come together, and all speak
with tongues, and there come in the unlearned or unbelievers, will they
not say that ye are mad?’ 28th verse, ‘If there be no interpreter, let
him (the speaker in an unknown tongue) keep silence in the _ekklesia_;
but let him speak to himself and to God;’ 33d verse, ‘For God is not the
author of confusion, but of peace, as in _all Churches_ of the saints;’
35th verse, ‘If they (the women) will learn any thing, let them ask
their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the
(_ekklesia_) _Church_.’ In the sixteenth chapter, 1st verse, Paul
mentions the _Churches_ of Galatia; and in the nineteenth, the
_Churches_ of Asia, and the _Church_ in the house of Aquila and
Priscilla, before alluded to.
“Now, passing over the address of the Second Epistle, turn to the eighth
chapter, where, after mention of _the Churches_ of Macedonia in the
first verse, we read, in the 18th and 19th verses, of one whose praise
was in _all the Churches_, and who was chosen _by the Churches_ to
travel with Paul; and in the 23d verse, of ‘our brethren the messengers
of the Churches,’ before whom and _the Churches_ the Corinthians are
exhorted, in the 24th verse, to show evidence of their love. In the 8th
verse of the eleventh chapter, the apostle says, ‘I robbed _other
Churches_, taking wages of _them_ to do you service;’ and after
enumerating some of his trials, afflictions, persecutions, and troubles,
he adds, in the 28th verse, ‘and besides all this, there cometh upon me
the care (not of the _whole Church_, you will observe, but) of _all the
Churches_.’ In the next chapter, 13th verse, he asks the Corinthians
wherein they were inferior to _other Churches_, except in this, that he
was not burdensome to them. In Gal. i. 22; mention is made again of the
_Churches which were in Judea_. He tells the Philippians, iv. 15, that
_no Church_, on a certain occasion, communicated with him in giving and
receiving but themselves; and in Col. iv. 15, 16, we read of the
_Church_ in the house of Nymphas, and the _Church_ of the Laodiceans. In
1 Thess. ii. 14, mention is made again of the _Churches_ of God in
Judea. In 2 Thess. iv. 4, Paul declares that he glories or boasts of the
Thessalonians in _the Churches of God_.
“You see, madam,” addressing the unknown lady, “we are getting through
with them very rapidly now, and will soon complete the list.”
“O, sir, I am not at all impatient; and indeed, since Mrs Percy’s
explanation of the object in view, am as deeply interested as any of you
can be; so pray do not omit a single place on my account, nor pass by
any carelessly. Let us be sure that we know not only the common meaning,
but _all the meanings_ which the word has in the Scriptures, whatever
time and trouble may be needful for that purpose.”
“Turn, then, to I Tim. iii. 5, where Paul is describing the character of
a bishop or pastor as one who rules well in his own house; ‘for if a man
know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the
_ekklesia_ of God?’ If he could not govern his own family, it might be
taken for granted that he would be unfit to preside in the _ekklesia_,
and take the care of souls.”
“Excuse me,” said the Doctor; “I thought a _bishop_ was one who had the
care of a _diocese_ including a number of churches.”
“That _is_ the case with modern bishops; but when we come to examine
into the nature of the _offices_ established in the first Churches by
Christ and the apostles, we will find no such bishops as you are
thinking of. A New Testament bishop was simply and only _the pastor of a
single church_. But let that pass for the present; we will bring it up
again.
“The next place is in 1 Tim. iii. 13: ‘That thou mayest know how thou
oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is _the Church_ of
the living God.’ The word here rendered _house_ does not mean a
building, but it is the same which in 1 Cor. i. 16 is translated
_household_ or _family_. ‘I baptized also the household of Stephanas,’
etc. The brethren and sisters in each Church are spoken of as a family,
of whom God is the Father and the Head. In the fifth chapter and 16th
verse, Paul charges that Church members having widows dependent on them
should take care of them, and not throw them upon _the Church_ for
support.
“In the next passage, second verse of Philemon, we read of the Church
that was in this beloved brother’s house. James, in his Epistle, v. 14,
says: ‘If any is sick, let him call for the elders of the Church.’ And
John, in the third Epistle, addressed to the well-beloved Gaius,
probably the same of whom Paul speaks as his host, and that of the
church, says that brethren and strangers have borne witness of his
charity before _the church_; (verse 6;) and informs him that he (John)
had written a letter to _the church_, but that a certain Diotrephes
prevented it from being received, and (verse 10) cast certain out of the
church, who would receive the brethren by whom he sent it.
“We come now to the last book of the record; and, on some accounts, the
most important one in regard to its testimony on this subject, as it
shows what the churches _were_ in the last days of which we have any
inspired history, and foretells what should befall them in the ages that
should follow.
“In Revelation i. 4, 11, 20, you find that they were not yet combined
into a diocese, or any ecclesiastical ‘establishment.’ It was not to the
Church in general, nor to the Church of Asia, but to ‘the seven Churches
which are in Asia,’ that he addressed his words. In the second and third
chapters he addresses successively each of these seven Churches by name,
and again and again calls upon those who have ears, to hear what the
Spirit saith unto _the Churches_. Rev. ii. 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23,
29. In the twenty-third verse he says, ‘And _all the Churches_ shall
know that I am he that searches the reins,’ etc. The third chapter, 1,
6, 7, 13, 14, 22, are, like those passages in the second, all mere forms
of address—to the angel of _the Church_ in Sardis, and the like, and
repetitions of the phrase, ‘He that hath an ear, let him hear what the
Spirit saith unto _the Churches_.’ And then, to crown the whole, in the
last chapter (verse 16) you may read, ‘I, Jesus, have sent my angel to
testify these things unto you in _the Churches_.’
“We have now seen and examined near a hundred of the hundred and fifteen
places where the word _ekklesia_ occurs. In all these I think it is very
generally conceded that it is employed (where it refers to the Christian
institution at all) in a limited and specific sense to denote _one local
and independent organized body or assembly of Christian people_. We will
now look at some in which it has commonly been thought to have reference
to the whole multitude of the Churches viewed collectively, as though
they were a single Church, which might with propriety be called the
_universal_ Church, or, in the language of the creed, ‘the holy Catholic
Church;’ and we will see, by a careful examination of them, passage by
passage, that there is _no such idea_ contained in any one of them. The
writers had in their minds no such conception, and their words mean
nothing of the sort.”
“Surely, my dear sir,” said Mr. Percy, “you must labor under some
mistake in regard to this; for, if I am not misinformed, it has been
almost universally conceded by Baptists as well as others, that in some
_few_ places ‘the Church’ is certainly employed as synonymous with ‘the
kingdom,’ and refers to _all_ the Churches of Christ, in every age and
nation, considered as one vast united organization: that body of which
Christ was the head: that great assembly for which he gave himself, to
redeem it unto God. Do not even our own best scholars and critics take
this for granted?”
“What if they do, my friend? It does not follow that we must take it for
granted too. We are making an independent examination for _ourselves_,
in order to learn what is the scriptural meaning of the word _ekklesia_,
rendered in our version _Church_. We do not ask what this man or that
man has thought it to mean: we go _for ourselves_ to the fountainhead.
We travel back to Greece, before our Saviour’s day, and see in what
sense the word was used in the language to which it belonged before it
was taken up by the Master and appropriated to his institution. We turn
to the Septuagint to see in what sense it was used by the Jews. We have
found that the Greeks used it to signify a select or called assembly:
perhaps we may admit that they sometimes used it to designate _any kind_
of an assembly. So in those places where the Jews employed it in their
Septuagint, we find the same sense: Deut. xviii. 16, ‘In the day of the
_assembly_,’ and Ps. xxii. 22, ‘In the midst of the _congregation_.’ We
must consequently _bring this sense with us when_ we come to the New
Testament. The ekklesia of Christ is the _select_ and _called_ assembly,
or, at least, it is _the assembly_ of Christ—that assembly which was
authorized and organized by him for certain purposes, which he has
specifically set forth in his instructions to his people of whom it
should be composed. Christ found the word with its meaning already
fixed. The meaning was suited to his purpose, and he therefore took it
and appropriated it to _his institution_. By the appropriation it did
not lose its original signification: its meaning was not changed. It was
because it _had_ that very meaning that Christ selected it and applied
it to his organization. It meant an assembly before he appropriated it,
and it meant an assembly afterwards; but then it was a _peculiar_
assembly—it was _his_ assembly—the assembly of Christ and of God; and
now after it was thus applied—after it had been thus _appropriated_ by
Christ, it would, when used by him, or in reference to his kingdom, have
this new and appropriated meaning. The ekklesia would be the sacred
assembly of Jesus Christ: it would be no common convocation, but only
that _official_ assembly which was convened by _his_ authority,
organized according to _his_ plan, for such objects as _he_ had
designated, and transacting business in _his_ name. That he _did_
authorize and organize a religious institution, (either by himself or
the apostles,) that he gave to it a constitution and laws, that he
charged it with the duty of making known his gospel, that he left to it
the administration of his ordinances and the execution of his laws, is
universally admitted. This institution he called _his_ _ekklesia_—his
Church. You ask me what this institution _was_—of what did it consist?
How can I answer your question so clearly, so easily, and so
satisfactorily as to point you to the institution itself as it actually
existed after it had been organized and was in the full tide of
successful operation under the very eyes of those whom he had
_personally instructed and divinely inspired_ to superintend its
workings. I carry you to Jerusalem. I show you the institution as there
exemplified and illustrated by the actual organization. I introduce you
into ‘the Church’ as it was first established in the city where Christ
was crucified, and from the suburbs of which he ascended to glory. The
apostles and the elders whom he had instructed with his own mouth are
members of it; and upon them there he first sends down his Holy Spirit
to bring to their remembrance all that he has taught them. _This_
organization was his ekklesia _This_ was of necessity the visible
embodiment of his idea. _This must have been_ just what he meant and
_all_ that he meant by his ekklesia. Christ in his lifetime had more
than once spoken of his Church; and when _this_ body was fairly
organized, Luke, speaking by inspiration, says _it was the Church_.
“Now, if this Church had, under the direction of Christ or his apostles,
spread itself out and embraced within its limits other local
organizations or religious societies, and made them _subordinate_ to and
_dependent upon_ itself, we must have recognized Christ’s ekklesia as
some great central establishment like the Church of Rome, holding the
multitude of the local congregations in a state of dependence and
subjection. If this Church, under the direction of Christ or the
apostles, had included within its jurisdiction all the Christians in
Judea, we might have regarded the ekklesia of Christ as a national
establishment. If it had subjected itself to the control of any other or
to all the other local organizations in such a way as to secure _mutual_
dependence, and a subordination of one to the whole, or to a majority of
the whole, we might have fancied that the Church of Christ consisted of
all the local societies thus mutually subordinated. But we find nothing
of the kind. This Church _never_ subjected any other to itself, and
never subjected itself to any other. It never included any other within
its limits, nor became included in the limits of any other. It was ‘the
Church which was at Jerusalem,’ and nothing more or less. It never
became the Church of Judea. But it was surrounded by ‘_the Churches
which were in Judea_,’ each of them as independent, each of them _as
much a Church_, as it was itself. It stood isolated and independent,
acknowledging subjection to none but Christ, as he had spoken in his
word, or might speak through his Spirit. When other Churches were formed
at Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, and Colosse, each of them was as
independent and complete within itself as this one was. This was the
model after which they all were fashioned. What, then, do we find the
Church of Christ actually to have been? Simply a _local assembly of
baptized believers, meeting by his authority to administer his
ordinances, and transact the business of his kingdom in his name_. This
we have ascertained, not from any chance _allusions_, not from any dark
and metaphorical expressions. We have not been left to _infer_ it from
some _figure of speech_, but have seen it as an _actual_ and working
existence. And now, I say, what has been thus settled by _facts_ cannot
be _un_settled by _fancies_. And so even if we should find some faint
allusion, or some metaphorical expression which seems to refer to
something else than this, and altogether different from this as though
it were the ekklesia of Christ, we shall not abandon the open sunlight
and the solid ground of inspired and undisputed historical _facts_, to
follow off some _ignis fatuus_ into the quagmires of metaphors, and
similes, and figures of speech. I say, there was no such thing intended
by Christ as a provincial Church, or a national Church, or a Church
universal, simply because I cannot find any _history_ of such a Church
in the Bible. I read of ‘the _Churches_ of Judea,’ and of ‘the
_Churches_ of Galilee,’ and of ‘the _Churches_ of Samaria,’ and of ‘the
_Churches_ of Galatia,’ and of ‘the _Churches_ of Asia,’ but not one
word about the _establishment_ which embraced them all, or any number of
them all. I say, therefore, that no such establishment existed. If
anybody says _it did_, it devolves on him to _prove_ it, and that not
from tradition—(we all know tradition is a gray-headed liar; and for
myself, I won’t believe a word he says, unless sustained by other
testimony)—let him prove it from _this book_, which we all agree
contains all that is needful for our religious faith and practice. I
will be guided by and governed by the Bible. I am willing to take the
Bible, and the whole Bible, with _every word truly and fairly
translated_; but I will have nothing but the Bible. Christ is my only
lawgiver in religion; and what law he did not make I am under no
religious obligation to obey.”
“But, Mr. Courtney,” said the strange lady, “let me ask you if the
advocates of provincial, and national, and other associated Churches do
not present some texts of Scripture on which they rest their claim. I
have heard so often of the Holy Catholic Church, Church militant and the
Church triumphant, of the Church on earth and the Church in glory, of
the ancient Church, of the apostolic Church, and of the Church
universal, that I am sure there must be _some_ Scripture for such
phrases.”
“You have heard many things for Scripture, madam, which nobody can find
in the Bible. Not one of these phrases is there. They are all mere human
fancies—very pretty, and in a certain sense sufficiently true; but in
the strict and literal _Bible sense_ to the word ‘Church,’ there is no
such thing as a Church, except it be a simple local assembly or
congregation of believers, organized according to Christ’s requirements,
and for the specific purposes which he intended. _The Church of Christ
is simply the visible judiciary and executive in his visible kingdom._”
“But you don’t deny that there is such a thing as the Church invisible,
as well as the Church visible.”
“You can conceive, madam, of a great ideal _invisible REPUBLIC_
embracing all those who in every age and country have hated kings and
kingcraft, and have longed for freedom. It is not a thing that _exists_.
It never _has_ existed. Yet you can _think_ about it; you can _talk_
about it; orators can make speeches about it; poets can write songs
about it; and it might come to occupy a place in our minds and in our
language, as though it were an actual reality. So I can conceive of an
invisible ‘assembly’ of Jesus Christ, comprising all who in their hearts
have loved him, and obeyed him in their lives, so far as they could
understand his will. We can talk of such an assembly, and sing what a
glorious and happy convocation it would be, but _here_ upon the earth no
such assembly has ever existed, or ever will exist. What may take place
in heaven is another matter. Our friend, the Doctor, is looking for the
Church of Christ _on earth_. He wants to _join_ it. And _this_ Church is
a _visible_ assembly. Our question is, whether it is a _local_
independent assembly, containing within itself all that is requisite to
constitute it a complete Church of Jesus Christ, or whether it is a part
of some great visible organization to which it is subordinate and
accountable. If it _be_ a local independent body, then it must follow,
of course, that those extensive _combinations_ which are called
Churches, such as the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the
Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church, and the like, _are not and cannot
be_ Churches of Jesus Christ; for they are not such local and
independent organizations, but vast combinations of mutually dependent
and subordinate societies. I say the Church of Christ _is not_ any such
combination, whether that combination includes a _part_, or whether it
includes _the whole_ of the professed disciples of Christ that are in
any country, or that are in all the world, because _the Church as we
find it in this book was not a combination of any Churches_, either more
or less, but each Church was complete in itself, and independent of all
others.”
“I know very well,” said Mr. Percy, “that no _partial_ combinations are
recognized as Churches in the Word; that there is, for instance, no such
thing as the union of all the religious societies in any country, or
province, or empire; nor any union of all holding a particular set of
doctrines, as the Methodist or Presbyterian Churches; but is it equally
certain that there is no such union spoken of as _existing between all
the Churches_, and binding them into one great UNIVERSAL CHURCH! I had
regarded it as a fact conceded by all the authorities that there was
_such_ a Church, commonly called the ‘_Church universal_.’”
“I recognize no authorities,” said Mr. Courtney, “but the writers of the
New Testament, and I know of no place where they have conceded any thing
of the kind. It may be that there are some _metaphorical allusions_ to
such an _imaginary_ or _ideal_ Church. As the believers in any one place
assemble and constitute an actual and visible Church, so we can well
conceive of all the believers in the world _as though they were
assembled_ in one immense congregation, and might very properly call
this ideal assembly the universal Church; but though we can conceive of
it, and speak of it thus, no such universal assembly exists, or has
existed, or ever will exist upon the earth. So that however numerous and
plain such allusions might be, they could have no possible bearing upon
the _actual_ organization of the real and visible Church. _That_ is no
universal Church. _It cannot be._ Let us for a moment suppose this
universal Church to be an actual existence. It _is_. _Where_ is it?
_What_ is it? If it exist at all, it is the Church of Rome. She is the
only body that _claims_ to be in herself the Holy Catholic or universal
Church, and to include, within herself alone, _all_ the redeemed. The
Church of England makes no such claim outside her queen’s dominions. The
Methodist Church North or the Methodist Church South makes no such
claim. The Presbyterian Old School or New School makes no such claim.
They only plead that they are parts of it, branches of it. But where and
what is the _whole_? As I said before, it is something which can be
_conceived of_, can be _talked about_, and _quarrelled over_, but it has
only an _ideal_, that is, an _imaginary_ existence. As a real and actual
visible organization, there is not now, and since the disciples were
scattered from Jerusalem, and went everywhere preaching the word and
founding Churches in every place, there never has been any thing of the
sort; and if we suppose any passages of Scripture to refer to any such
thing, we must suppose them to refer to a nonentity.”
“But why not let us have the passages at once, that we may judge for
ourselves?” asked the Doctor.
“Certainly, sir, I ask pardon, I know I have talked too long. Mr. Percy
seems to think that he can find this Church universal: perhaps he will
do us the kindness to point us to the texts which he thinks teach its
existence.”
“I acknowledge, sir,” said Mr. Percy, “that I have not investigated this
point. I had taken it for granted. I was not aware that anybody
questioned it. But suppose we turn to Matthew xvi. 18: ‘On this rock
will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it.’”
“This is the first place,” said Mr. Courtney, “in which the word
ekklesia occurs in the New Testament. The question before us is, What
did Christ mean by it? What _was_ it that he said he would build? How
can we ascertain?”
“Very easily, I should think,” said Theodosia; “we have only to look
_when he had done it_, and see what he _did build_. That we have done
already, in almost a hundred of the different places where it is
referred to, and have found it invariably to mean a _local and
independent assembly_.”
“It does not seem so easy to me,” returned Mr. Percy, “for there are to
my mind at least two very serious difficulties in the way of that
interpretation. One is, that Christ uses the term my Church in such a
general way that it can hardly be limited to any particular individual
body. He does not say, I will build my Churches each one by itself, but
my Church in general. The other is, that this Church, whatever it might
be, was to be _perpetual_. The gates of hell should not prevail against
it. But this could not be true of any one local organization. _They_ are
continually falling. The first Churches have long ago vanished from the
earth, and Satan has reigned with undisputed sway in the very cities
where the apostles themselves were instruments to build them. Christ
must, therefore, have designed to speak of some more extensive and more
permanent organization.”
“Very good,” replied Mr. Courtney, “I love to meet objections, and will
examine your last one first. You say that this Church must have been a
perpetual organization, since the gates of hell should not prevail
against it. But no local organization has been perpetual; therefore, it
could not have been any local organization, but something more
permanent, that Christ intended. Your logic is good, and you have, of
course, some knowledge of the more permanent organization to which he
must have referred. Can you tell we what it was? It was a _visible_
organization _founded by Christ_, and which _has continued_ to the
present time. It is not the Methodist Church, for that was founded by
John Wesley. It is not the Presbyterian, for that was founded by John
Calvin. It was not the modern English, for that began with King Henry
the Eighth. It was not the Roman Catholic, for that is Antichrist.”
“Of course,” replied Mr. Percy, “no Baptist pretends that it was any of
these. It was the ‘Church universal.’ It consisted of all the true
Churches of Christ, viewed collectively as one great united
organization.”
“If the thing you are speaking of, Mr. Percy, was a mere _ideal_
organization, something _conceivable_, but not existing as a _reality_,
we have nothing to do with it; but if you mean that there was an
_actual_ and _visible_ organization established by Christ, and which
included in one Church _all_ the members of all his Churches, you can
doubtless produce some record of its sayings or doings. We have very
particular accounts of the acts of the Church at Jerusalem, and of that
at Antioch, and of some others, and surely we must have some history of
this general Church. When did it meet? What were its powers? What
business came before it? We have searched carefully, and have found
nothing of it. It surely did not exist in the lifetime of the apostles.
The Churches which they founded continued separate and independent. They
were never amalgamated into one great central organization; or if they
were, not only has the organization been destroyed, but even the record
of it has perished.”
“I confess, sir, that I had no very clear conception in my mind as to
what it was that the Saviour said he would build, and since he did not
build any universal _visible_ Church, I suppose it must have been his
_invisible_ Church that he referred to.”
“But the language will hardly apply to any thing invisible and ideal. A
building is a _visible_ and _tangible_ object, and the reference must
have been to some actual and visible organization.”
“How, then, do you get round the difficulty, Mr. Courtney?”
“I don’t go round it at all. I simply set it out of my way, thus: Christ
did _not_ refer to any particular individual local organization when he
said ‘my Church.’ He did not mean the Church at Jerusalem or the Church
at Corinth. Much less did he refer to all the Churches combined in _one
great Church_. But he simply used the word as the _name of his
institution_. And what that institution was we have already seen.”
“I am not sure that I quite understand you.”
“Then, let me illustrate. You are a lawyer. A client comes to you for
legal information. You tell him that the law is thus or so; and so ‘_the
court_’ will instruct ‘_the jury_.’ What do you mean by _the court_? and
what do you mean by _the jury_? Not any particular _individual judge_
whom you may have in mind, much less all the judges in the world
comprised in one gigantic ‘_universal_’ judge; but you mean _any one of
all_ the judges before whom the suit might be tried; and not any
_particular set_ of jurymen, much less all the jurymen in the world
united in one vast conglomerate ‘universal’ jury; but simply that jury,
whichever or wherever it may be, who may chance to be empanelled on the
case. ‘_The court_’ is the name or title given to a certain official
personage, when engaged in the performance of certain official duties.
‘_The jury_’ is the name or title given to a certain official body or
assembly, when employed in a certain official capacity. Now, as the
courts and juries in the British empire transact business and administer
justice by the authority of Queen Victoria, and in her name, they may
very properly be called _her_ court, and _her_ jury, meaning thereby
simply _her institutions_, organized by her authority for the
transaction of this specific business, In her name. The first courts and
juries which were organized may have been dissolved; others may have
followed, and, like them, have disappeared; but still the _institution_
continues: _the jury_ is still an essential part of the apparatus for
the administration of justice. A thousand juries are every year
empanelled and dismissed, but still the _jury_ (using the word as the
name of the institution) is perpetual. It has continued since the right
of trial by a jury of their equals was first conceded to his subjects by
the reluctant king, It will continue so long as the constitution of the
English or the American government shall endure. And if I should say
that the jury is ‘_built_’ upon the ‘_rock_’ of the constitution, and
that the councils of tyrants can never ‘_prevail against_’ or overthrow
it, I should speak of it just as Christ did about his Church; but you
would not, in that case, insist that the jury must be something much
more extensive and permanent than the little company or assembly of
twelve chosen men, properly qualified and authorized to transact certain
specific business, which everybody knows the jury to be.
“So, you see, Mr. Percy, _both_ your difficulties are removed by the
same process.”
“I give it up, sir. But if it will not at all divert us from our object,
I would like to hear Mr. Courtney’s exposition of this whole passage. I
know that it has given rise to much diversity of opinion; and my own
mind is not quite settled in regard to it. I am now perfectly satisfied
about what is meant by _the Church_; but what was _the rock_ on which
Christ said that he would build it? Was that rock Peter? or was it
Christ? or was it something Peter had said?”
“If wise men had not disagreed about it,” replied Mr. Courtney, “I am
sure I should never have felt that there was any mystery in the text. To
me it has always seemed as plain and easy to comprehend as any other
_figurative_ language.
“Christ had been asking his apostles what was said about him in the
world. ‘Whom do men say that I am?’ They answered, ‘Some say John the
Baptist, some Elias, some Jeremias, or one of the prophets.’ ‘But what,’
said he, ‘is _your_ opinion? Whom do _you_ say that I am?’ Peter, with
his characteristic promptness, answered for them all: ‘Thou art the
Christ, the son of the living God.’ _This_ was what they believed. This
was the confession of _their faith_. They held him to be Messiah. They
believed he came from God. They took him for their Lord. They trusted in
him as He who should redeem Israel.
“Jesus replies, that such faith has come from God alone. Blessed, or
happy, art thou, Simon, son of Jonas; for flesh and blood hath not
revealed this unto thee; but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say
likewise unto thee thou art called ‘_petros_,’ (the masculine form of
the Greek word signifying _rock_,) and then, (changing the gender to
that form in which signified a literal rock,) on this ‘petra’ I will
erect or build ‘_my_ _ekklesia_.’ This faith in me, as the Messiah, the
Son of God, shall be the _basis_ of my institution called ‘the Church.’
The comparison seems to have been suggested by Peter’s name. Your name
is Rock; and as rocks are used for the foundation of buildings, so on
this metaphorical, or figurative rock, he would, metaphorically
speaking, erect his building. If he had meant that he would build it _on
Peter himself_, he would not have changed the gender of the word. Peter
as an individual man, was _petros_, and not _petra_, but it was on this
petra that he was about to build.
“But now, let us see more particularly wherein the force of the
comparison consists. In what particular way did this confession of
Peter’s bear the same relation to Christ’s _ekklesia_ that the
foundation does to the building? Simply thus: the foundation of a
building is _first_ laid down, and the superstructure is then reared
upon it. The foundation _is the necessary prerequisite_ for a permanent
edifice. So this confession, this _profession of faith_ in Christ, as
the Messiah of God, was to be an essential _prerequisite_ to the
organization of his Church. This faith in Christ lies at the base of
this metaphorical building. The Church consists of _individuals_; but
before these individuals can be erected into a Church, _the foundation
must be laid by a profession on their part of faith in Christ_. The
Church erected on this basis will stand for ever. On any other it will
be like the house which a man built on the sand: the winds and storms of
adversity and persecution and temptation will soon cause its utter
overthrow. Christ says to every one who seeks to be built into this holy
temple, as Philip to the Ethiopian officer, ‘If thou believest with all
thy heart, thou mayest.’ No other condition will suffice. And just as
_the jury_, which, if not composed of persons properly qualified and
duly sworn, is _no jury_ in law or in fact, though it may be in
appearance and in name; so that Church which consists of those who have
not in form or in fact made a personal confession of faith in Christ, is
not a real Church of Christ. It may be one in appearance and in name,
but it is not built upon this rock; and according to the constitution
and laws of his kingdom, it is not a _legal_ Church, and has no
authority to transact his business.”
“If I do not mistake,” said Theodosia, “this comparison of the Church to
a building is not uncommon in the Scriptures. I have an indistinct
remembrance of having seen it in several other places.”
“Certainly, madam. It is employed several times by Paul,” replied Mr.
Courtney, “and that in such a connection as to remove every shadow of a
doubt, if we have one remaining, as to its applicability to a _local
Church_. To the Church at Corinth he declares, (1 Cor. iii. 9,) ‘_Ye_
are God’s building.’ To the Ephesians he says, (Eph. iii. 23,) ‘In whom
_ye_ also are builded together for _an_ habitation [not _the_
habitation] of God through the Spirit.’ To the Colossians he says, (Col.
ii 6, 7,) ‘As _ye_ have received Christ Jesus, the Lord, so walk ye in
him, rooted [founded] and _built up_ in him, and established in the
faith that ye have been taught.’ So, (Jude 20,) ‘But ye, beloved,
_building up_ yourselves _on_ your _most holy faith_,’ etc.
“What we learn from this text, then, is simply this: Christ was about to
set up an institution which should be called ‘_his_ _ekklesia_,’ or his
assembly, now commonly in English called ‘_his Church_.’ But this Church
could not be built before its _foundation_ had been laid in an open
profession of faith in him as the Messiah of God. His _ekklesia_ should
rest upon this basis. Its members must be believers in Christ. This is
the necessary and indispensable prerequisite; and _that_ institution
which _he_ erected on this foundation shall never be overthrown. It is
_an institution of Christ_. He calls it ‘_my ekklesia_.’ It rests on the
rock of _faith_, and not on external forms. It, therefore, consists of
_believers_, and not of believers and their baptized children. It is a
_perpetual_ institution, and has continued from the time that he
established it till now, and will continue till he comes again. ‘The
gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ It can, therefore, never
_become apostate_, and needs never to be _reformed_; for it will ever
continue in its pristine purity and simplicity. Just such an institution
now exists; and I trust before we have travelled many days longer in
search of it, we may come upon it.
“But, now, lest you may have some _lingering doubt_ whether _this
Church_, which Christ and Paul so beautifully compare to a building, may
not after all be some vast centralization of ecclesiastical
authority—some multitude in one—something, the parts of which were
‘Churches,’ and the whole combined ‘the Church’—let us spend a few
minutes on the next place, which is, indeed, the only other place in
which Christ used the word. That will dissolve the last remaining shadow
of uncertainty.”
“I am sure,” said Mr. Percy, “I do not see how the case can well be made
any plainer than it appears to me already. The momentary doubts which
came up in my mind arose from the fact that I did not look at the term
‘_the Church_’ as the general title or name of the _Christian
institution_, but was trying to apply it to some _individual example_ of
the institution. With your explanation the difficulty vanished. I only
wonder that I could not see the truth as easily us my wife, before it
was pointed out to me.”
“You know, my dear,” said she, “that we ladies have a way of jumping at
our conclusions, while you gentlemen must take time to reason up to the
same point. We get there first; but you have this advantage, that you
can look back and see the road you came, while we only know that we are
there. But now, since Mr. Courtney and you have discovered the principle
on which the text is to be interpreted, I have thought of another
illustration of it.”
“Pray madam,” said the Doctor, “do let us have it, for I confess these
views of the Church are so new to me, and so different from all my
preconceptions, that I am somewhat bewildered, and need _all_ the light
which can be thrown on the subject.”
“The principle,” said she, “is the same as that on which the name of an
individual is every day applied to the species, genus, or family, to
which it belongs. As when we say of the _oak_ that it is the most
majestic of forest trees, we do not mean any one oak, nor do we mean all
the oaks in the world comprised in one ‘universal’ oak. Each oak is
still a separate and individual tree; but we apply the name of the
individual to all the species—_not_ considered collectively, as _one
great oak_, but separately, as hundreds and thousands of trees, each
having the _same name_. But I don’t know whether I am making myself
understood: perhaps the example will do it better than my explanation.
When God tells Job to look at his behemoth, or at his leviathan, which
he had made, he does not mean any particular individual behemoth or
leviathan. What he says of them is characteristic of each individual,
and so applies to all the race of these mighty monsters of the land and
of the sea.”
“Or, to take a more familiar example, Theo.,” said Mr Percy, “when he
directs his attention to the horse rushing to the battle, he does not
mean any particular individual war horse, but includes all that class of
horses to which his description will apply; and we are accustomed every
day to use the word _horse_ in common conversation just as the word
_church_ is employed in the text we have been discussing. We speak of a
_horse_, referring to _any_ individual specimen of the race, as Paul
talks of every church; of _the_ horse, meaning thereby some particular
individual horse, as he speaks of _the_ Church at Jerusalem, and the
like. Of the horses, meaning those on some plantation, or in some State,
as he talks of the Churches of Judea, of Galatia, and of Asia; and we
every day speak of the horse as the most desirable of domestic animals;
of the docility of the horse; of the speed of the horse, and the like,
just as Jesus here, and Paul elsewhere, speaks of _the Church_ as
founded on a rock; as bought with his blood; as the body of Christ, who
is its head; and, as we do not mean by the term ‘the horse,’ when used
in this generic or representative sense, all the horses in the world
combined in one vast horse, visible or invisible, no more do we mean by
the term ‘_the Church_,’ when employed in this representative or generic
sense, all the Churches in the world, combined in one great visible or
invisible Church. Now, my illustration, if not so beautiful as Mrs.
Percy’s tree, or so sublime as her behemoth, has at least this
recommendation, that it is perfectly familiar.”
“Indeed, sir,” said the Doctor, “it is very striking and convincing,
though it must be admitted that it is not very poetical. And, for my own
part, I am ready, Mr Courtney to go on to the other text you spoke of.”
“I had almost forgotten what we were about to do; and thank you for
calling it to my mind. I said, or might have said, that Christ, so far
as we have any record of the fact, personally employed this word but
twice: once as we have seen, and the next time, shortly afterwards, in
the next chapter but one. In this, he designates one of the objects for
which the Church was constituted. If Mrs. Percy will turn to Matt.
xviii., and begin at the 15th verse, she may read us the passage.”
“Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him
his fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast
gained thy brother; but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee
one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word
may be established. And if he neglect to hear them, _tell it unto the
Church_; but if he shall _neglect to hear the Church_, let him be unto
thee as an heathen man and a publican.”
“We learned from the other passage,” said Mr. Courtney, “that Christ
himself would organize the Church, and that it should consist only of
believers upon him as the Messias of God; but we had no intimation of
the _objects_ which this Church was intended to accomplish, or of the
manner in which its business was to be brought before it. In this one,
however, a flood of light is poured upon these points. One object, at
least, was to secure peace and harmony among the brethren, and the
purity of its own membership.
“This text contains the fundamental law of Church discipline. This is
the process to be observed in case of disagreement between Church
members. The brother who feels himself aggrieved, must first go to the
offender and try the effect of a personal interview. If this should
fail, he must take one or two brethren, and talk the matter over in
their presence, and try what effect may be produced by their
suggestions. If this also should fail, he must not let the wound
continue to fester and the sore to spread. He must not get out into the
world and proclaim his brother’s faults, or make known his own
complaints. He must _tell it to the Church_; and if he will _not hear
the Church_, then he is no longer bound to treat him as a Christian
brother. Here the matter ends. When _the Church_ has decided, the
question is settled. There is no appeal. There is no higher authority to
whom he can go. The Church is supreme. Its decision is final. It cannot
be reversed by any authority but its own. Christ is King, and the Church
is the executive in his dominion. What the Church does, even though it
consist of but two or three gathered in _his_ name, asking wisdom from
_him_, and guided strictly _by his laws_, he says (verses 18–20) that
he will sanction, for he will be invisibly present in their midst.
“Now, let us bring our question, ‘_What is the Church?_’ to this text
for an answer.
“I think, Doctor, you do not now consider yourself a member of Christ’s
visible Church at all. But our Methodist friend thinks you would be one
if you should unite with any one of those religious societies which are
commonly called Churches. Let us suppose that you had united with his
society, and that you and he should have a disagreement in which you
felt yourself aggrieved. You have gone to him and talked the matter
over, but in vain. You have taken with you one or two more, and tried to
reconcile the quarrel through their mediation, but could not succeed;
and now, you, as a subject of Christ’s kingdom and bound by his law,
feel that you have only one more thing that you can do: you are not at
liberty to go before the civil courts; you must not _tell_ it to the
_world_; nor are you at liberty to leave the matter undecided, and so
perpetuate a quarrel between two members of Christ’s body. The law of
the King is plain and imperative: you must tell it to the Church. This
you are ready to do; but now, where is your Church? Whom shall you tell?
Who is to decide for you? The Church. But what is the Church? Is it the
class-leader? No. Is it the class? No. Is it the minister in charge? No.
Is it the Quarterly Conference? No. Is it the General Conference? No.”
“Of course not,” interrupted the Methodist. “The Methodist Church
consists of all those persons who have passed their six months’
probation, and have been recommended by the class-leader, and received
by the minister in charge into full membership. No one, I trust, is so
simple as to imagine that we regard the class, or the minister, or the
Conference, as the Church of Christ.”
“Very good,” said Mr. Courtney. “Your Methodist Church consists of all
who have passed their probation in class, and been admitted to full
membership. Could Dr. Thinkwell tell his trouble to _them_? He could not
even tell it to the Methodist Church, South; and if he could, that would
not be the _Methodist Church_, for that must include also the Methodist
Church, North; and these would only be the American portion of it. To
tell it to the Methodist Episcopal Church, he must raise his voice so as
to be heard from Maine to Florida, and from New York to California. Nay,
he must lift it above the roar of the ocean, and shriek his complaints
across the broad Atlantic, or fail to ‘_tell it to the Church_,’ as
Christ commanded him.
“If he had been an Episcopalian, or a Presbyterian, or had connected
himself with any other of the great religious combinations or
ecclesiastical establishments which are commonly called Churches, he
would have the same difficulty. If these vast establishments are the
Church, _he cannot tell the Church_—he cannot make it hear him. And if
we suppose the Church to be that _universal_ something which we were
speaking of, the difficulty is so much the greater; for then, when he
has told his trouble to the Methodist Church, or the Episcopal Church,
or the Presbyterian Church, or the Lutheran Church, he has only told it
to a branch, and not to the Church itself.”
“Excuse me, sir,” replied the Methodist, “if I say that this sounds to
me like the merest twaddle, since you can hardly be ignorant that we all
regard the word church as having two distinct meanings. In one sense, it
means all those who profess the true religion—the whole vast body of
believers in Christ. In the other sense, it is used to designate a
single local society or congregation of believers. In the passage before
us it has this limited sense. ‘_It was_,’ as the learned Bloomfield says
in his note on the place, ‘to that congregation to which they both
belonged that the offended brother was to tell his grievance.’”
“I am perfectly aware,” replied Mr Courtney, “that the word church in
common usage has not only two but half a dozen meanings; but I say, that
in the _New Testament_, as a religious and appropriated term, _it has
but one_. ‘The Church of God and of Christ’ was one thing, and no more.
When this institution is spoken of, it is that one thing which is
intended. It was _this_ which Jesus said he would build. It was _this_
against which the gates of hell should not prevail. It was this to which
the brother should relate his grievance. And this was the local assembly
of Christian people organized according to Christ’s instructions.
Bloomfield was right. It was to the local organization, ‘that
congregation to which they both belonged,’ that the offended brother was
to tell his grievance. In this we perfectly agree. _And now mark me_: If
this _was_ the body which Christ meant, I will show you that those
establishments which people call the Presbyterian Church, and the
Episcopal Church, and the Methodist Church, ARE OPEN AND SYSTEMATIC
REBELS AGAINST THE LAW OF CHRIST. They have nullified and set aside HIS
law of discipline, and substituted their own inventions.”
“Those are very hard words, sir, and should have been well weighed
before you uttered them. It is no trifling matter to bring such a charge
against the great mass of Christ’s professing people; and, sir, God will
hold you responsible for such harsh and unfounded accusations against
his dear people.”
The preacher evidently _felt_ all the indignation which he expressed as
much by his voice and countenance as in his words; and the scattered
company, which had been engaged in reading, or talking, or lounging
listlessly upon the sofas, attracted by the peculiar tone of the excited
speaker, all turned their faces towards the table around which the
discussion was going on; and several left their seats, and came and
stood where they could see Mr. Courtney’s face as he very quietly
replied:
“I have not been accustomed, in discussions upon the subject of
religion, to make assertions which I was not prepared fully to sustain.
If I do not show you that in this matter these so-called Churches have
_rebelled_ against Christ, set aside and _nullified_ his law, and
substituted regulations of their own in its place, then you may give
vent to all the indignation which you think you ought to feel towards a
slanderer of your brethren.”
“But, sir,” exclaimed the unknown lady, “if we are _rebels_ against
Christ, we cannot be Christians. If these Churches are living in open,
systematic, and avowed disregard of his laws, they cannot be his people.
And yet I am sure that even you, badly as you seem to think of everybody
but your own company, will not deny that there is as much piety and
devotion to the interests of religion in these Churches as even among
the Baptists themselves.”
“I trust, madam, that neither you nor any of this company will so far
misunderstand me as to imagine that I mean for _individual members_ what
I say of the _ecclesiastical establishment_ to which they belong. Some
of the best and most devoted men and women that have ever honored the
Christian name were Roman Catholics; yet you as much as I believe that
the Roman Catholic hierarchy is so much a _rebel_ that it is the very
‘_antichrist_,’ ‘_the man of sin_,’ and the ‘_son of perdition_,’
foretold in the Scriptures. Some of her _members_ are good subjects of
Jesus, who have been deluded and deceived; but the _organization_ is
antichristian and destructive to true obedience to Christ. So I do not
deny that in these other so-called Churches there is a vast amount of
_individual piety_; I do not question that there is much truth believed
and acted out unto the salvation of souls; but what I say is this: these
establishments have, by their constitutional laws, by the arrangements
of their systems of judicature, as adopted in their convocations and
published in their books of discipline, confessions of faith, etc., _set
aside_ the law of Christ, and substituted _their own_. And _this act I
CALL_ an act of open and systematic and deliberate _rebellion_. If you
can find a milder and yet appropriate name for it, you may call it
something else. Christ the King says, ‘Tell it to the Church.’ They say,
No, you are _not_ to tell it to _the Church_. You shall tell it to the
‘_minister in charge_,’ or to a ‘committee appointed by him.’ If he or
they do not decide to please both you and the minister, you may tell it
to the quarterly conference, etc. _Christ the King_ says, ‘Tell it to
_the Church_.’ They say, No, you shall tell it to the session, and if
the session do not decide to please both parties, then tell it to the
presbytery, to the synod, and general assembly. _Christ the King_ says,
‘Tell it to _the Church_.’ They say, No, you shall tell it to the
_bishop_, or those whom the bishop may have appointed. The Church, that
is, the assembly or ‘congregation to which both the brethren belong,’ is
not known. The whole business is taken out of the hands of the Church,
where Christ commanded it to be decided, and placed in other hands, to
which Christ gave no authority. If this is not a _nullification_ of the
law of the King, and substituting another in its place, I do not see
what could constitute that act. If this is not rebellion, how can a
Church rebel? The same body to which the brother was to _tell_ his
grievance was that which should _decide_ upon it; and _its_ decision was
to be final. From it there was no appeal. When he had the decision of
_the Church_, that was the end of the matter. Now, if you really believe
that _the Church_, as Christ here used the words, was the _local
society_, how dare you prevent the brother from going to it? and how
dare you deny to it the right to hear and to decide? How dare you take
the power from _the Church_, and give it to the minister and his
committee, or to a quarterly or annual or general conference? If the
Presbyterian considers the Church here spoken of to be the ‘local
assembly of Christ’s people,’ how does he dare to change Christ’s law,
and require the brother to tell it to the _session_, and by what
authority can the case be taken up to a presbytery, synod, or general
assembly? If, by the constitution of our government, the power to
declare war and negotiate peace is given expressly to the general
government at Washington, then any other organization that shall take
upon itself to perform these specific acts, places itself in the
attitude of a rebel. If you and these other religious establishments
regard the Church here spoken of as the local assembly, nothing can be
more clear than that you do not intend to obey Christ’s law; for you and
they, in utter disregard of _his_ commandment to settle the difficulty
_in the Church_, require it to be settled in altogether another place,
and by altogether different authority. The authority which Christ
expressly gave _the Church_ you have taken away from the Church, and
placed in the hands of individuals, or certain ‘judicatory bodies.’”
“The Church,” replied the Methodist, “may very properly be said to do
herself what she does by her authorized agents and representatives.
These judicatory bodies are the agents of the Church, through whom she
carries out her will.”
“Let us look into that a moment,” said Mr. Courtney. “The Church which
Christ decreed should finally decide between the disaffected brethren,
is ‘_the local society of which they both are members_.’ Was this not
what you just now asserted?”
“Certainly it was.”
“And yet you tell us now that these judicatory bodies, these
conferences, councils, synods, and assemblies, are the authorized
representatives and agents of ‘_the Church_.’ Now, they may be the
agents of those amalgamated bodies which you call the Methodist Church,
the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, and the like; but they
are not the agents of the _local society_ of which both these brethren
were members. _Their act is not the act of that society._ Very often it
is just the reverse of what that society had determined. They are not
the servants, not the agents, but the _masters_ of that society. They
make laws for that society. They require obedience from that society.
They hold that society responsible to them, and not themselves
responsible to it. If it refuses to sanction their act, it is liable at
once to be cut off from what they call the body of Christ, as a corrupt
and offensive member. If it rebels against their decree, or refuses to
carry it into execution, it is liable itself to be excluded from what
they call ‘the Church.’ If, then, Christ left the matter with the
Church, _and the Church is the local society_ of which both the brethren
are members, then these bodies are _usurpers_. They have usurped
authority which Christ did not give them, and have taken it away from
those to whom he did give it. Why, sir, even if the Church _had_
delegated her authority to conferences or councils, synods or
assemblies, the act _would have been utterly invalid_. Christ could not
sanction it. He gave the authority to the Church to be exercised there;
and it can be delegated only by an open repudiation of HIS LAW as
contained in this text. If it be the local society, therefore, that
Christ referred to, then all the authority of your conferences, all the
authority of sessions, presbyteries, synods, and councils, is given,
claimed, and exercised, not merely without the sanction of the King, but
in open disregard of his commandment. The Church that _gives_ it is a
rebel. The body that receives and exercises it, so far from being in any
sense a true Church of Jesus Christ, is, to say the least, an
unauthorized intruder. Christ has no use for such a body. Christ never
appointed such a body. Christ made the local Church supreme. She has no
right to subordinate herself to any power on earth, and that day she
does so she ceases to be a Church of Christ, for in HIS Churches _he
alone is King_. She may ask _advice_ of sister Churches, or of wise and
holy men, but she dare not and cannot delegate to others the supreme
authority which Christ has vested in herself. His Church is not allowed
to cull any man, or any set of men, its master. Its members are alike
subject to Christ, and all alike responsible to him alone. But how,
then, could they be governed? how could discipline be maintained? How
could the purity of the body be preserved? There were laws, but how
could they be applied, and by what authority enforced? This was the
grand problem. In its solution, Paul says, the manifold wisdom of God
was made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places. His
plan was very simple, and, wherever it has been fairly tried, has been
found perfectly effectual. He made every one a priest and king. He
invested every member with the right to execute his laws, but only when
assembled with the brethren. As many as could conveniently unite came
voluntarily together and by mutual consent were constituted an
‘_ekklesia_,’ or official assembly, of Christ. It was subject to _his_
laws: it acted by _his_ authority: it used _his_ name to give a sanction
to its acts; and as he had _authorized_ it, and conferred on it all its
authority, so he promised to be in its midst by his Spirit, and to
ratify in heaven what it did upon the earth. In this assembly, all were
equal. There were no subjects and no lords. For the sake of order, it
was needful to have some presiding officer, but he was chosen by the
brethren. He was only for the time the chief among his equals. By this
assembly the ordinances were administered. To this assembly belonged the
duty to enforce Christ’s laws. It could not _make_ laws. It could not
_change_ laws. That were to usurp the prerogative of its Master. It
could only apply and execute Christ’s laws. It was to this body and no
other that the brother was to go with his complaint; and when it had
decided, no power on earth could reverse its decision. Each Church was
complete within itself—independent of all earthly control, and subject
only to the law of Christ. _This_ was the Church of Christ and of God.
_This_ was the institution which Christ said, in the other chapter, he
would build, and this was the body to which, in this, he directs the
offended brother to carry his complaint. From this place we learn only
one of its objects, but by turning to 1 Cor. xi. 20–34, you will see
that it was in this official assembly that the ordinance of the Supper
was observed. It was not as individuals, but as an _ekklesia_, an
_official_ assembly of the members, that they brake the bread and drank
the wine, in solemn and sad, yet joyful remembrance of his death. If you
turn to Romans xiv. 1, you will find that it pertained to this body to
decide who should be received as members. If you will examine the fifth
chapter of 1st Corinthians, you will see that it was authorized and
required to exclude from its membership the immoral and vicious, and
give them over to Satan. From Gal. vi. 1, and 2 Cor. ii. 8, you may
learn that it was empowered to restore the offender upon evidence of his
repentance. From 2 Thess. iii. 6, it is evident that it was its solemn
and imperative duty to disown and withdraw from those who _changed the
ordinances_, or conducted in an unchristian manner.
“These duties and obligations were binding on each ekklesia for itself;
and in their fulfilment it neither needed nor permitted the interference
of any other. Even an inspired apostle, when writing to the Corinthians,
would not take the case of discipline out of the hands of the Church;
but only instructed them as to what the law of Christ required in regard
to the offender. And, on his repentance, he did not undertake to thrust
him back into the Church; but kindly _besought_ them to confirm their
love to the penitent, lest he might be overwhelmed with overmuch
sorrow.”
“I think,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “we may now pass on to the examination of
those other passages which you said are commonly understood to refer to
the Church universal. We seem to be getting on but slowly.”
“The general principle of interpretation which we have just settled,”
said Mr. Courtney, “will help us more rapidly through the others. We
have seen that both from the origin of the word ekklesia, and from its
actual application in the many cases where it refers to a _real_ and
_visible_ organization, it signified only a _local_ and independent body
of Christians—never all Christians combined in one body. We have seen,
moreover, that the word, without losing this meaning at all, may be
employed in a general way, as the _name of the institution_ which Christ
set up: just as we every day apply the name of an individual to the
whole species or family to which that individual belongs: as when we
say, the elephant is the most sagacious of brutes; or, the dog is the
companion of man. Now, when the term ‘_the Church_’ is thus employed, it
is no more needful to understand it as meaning all the Churches combined
in one great Church, visible or invisible, than it is to suppose that
the words ‘the elephant,’ or ‘the dog,’ thus used, must signify all the
elephants in the world, combined in one unwieldy elephant; or that all
the dogs are united into one immense dog, who is the companion of some
giant man, comprising in his own person all the men upon the earth. Let
us then apply this rule to the three passages in which Paul speaks of
himself as having persecuted the Church: 1 Cor. xv. 9, Gal. i. 13, Phil.
iii. 6. ‘For I am the least of the apostles, and not worthy to be called
an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.’ ‘For ye have heard
of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond
measure I persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it.’ ‘Concerning
zeal, persecuting the Church.’
“It has been thought by some that Paul could have meant nothing less
than the Church universal in these places. The truth is, he could have
meant no other than the ‘Church which was at Jerusalem,’ for that was
the _only_ Church that he ever persecuted. He had it in his heart to
persecute that at Damascus also, if he should find one there; but he did
not do it. Christ met him on the way, and changed the tiger to a lamb.
And when Paul reached Damascus, it was to preach the faith he once
destroyed; and be himself the object of the bitterest persecution from
his former associates. But what if Paul _had_ actually persecuted a
dozen or a hundred Churches? It would not follow that he meant to say
that he had persecuted some vast visible or invisible organization,
comprising in one body all the Church members on the earth. If I say
that I have spent much time in hunting _the fox_, or killing _the deer_,
I do not mean that I have hunted and killed some great ‘_universal_’
fox, or ‘_universal_’ deer. It is easy to understand that by hunting
_any_ one individual fox I hunted ‘the fox;’ and by killing any one
individual deer I killed ‘the deer.’ Why cannot we permit Paul to use
words in the same way? If he persecuted any one individual Church, he
persecuted ‘the Church.’
“This is plain, common sense. A sportsman can understand, though it may
puzzle a doctor of divinity. By the way, it has always seemed very
strange to me that men will not bring their _common sense_ with them
when they come to examine into the meaning of the Scriptures. Suppose,
Doctor, that a friend of yours in Louisiana should write to you in
language like the following: ‘I am a cotton-planter, and yet am not
worthy to be called a cotton-planter, because, some twenty years ago, I
was bitterly opposed to Whitney and the cotton-gin.’
“What would you, or any of this company, think of that man’s common
sense, who would gravely argue from these words that although the
cotton-gin is a well-known machine, and there are a great many separate
and distinct cotton-gins scattered about on thousands of plantations,
yet, some twenty years ago, there must have been some great and
complicated machine, composed of all the cotton-gins in the world,
united into one _great cotton-gin_ ‘_universal_,’ or else this man could
not have said, with any propriety, that he had been opposed to ‘_the
cotton-gin_!’ Yet this is precisely what doctors of divinity are guilty
of when they take it for granted, or try to prove that there must once
have been, and must be still, some vast conglomerate body, visible or
invisible, called the ‘_universal_’ Church, and composed of all the
Christians or of all the Churches in the world; otherwise Paul could
not, with any propriety, have said that he ‘persecuted _the Church_ of
God.’”
“I think, sir,” said the Doctor, smiling, “we may consider these three
passages as fairly disposed of.”
“Then let us take another. Turn to Ephesians iii. 10 and 21: ‘To the
intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places
might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God.’ ‘Unto him be
glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without
end.’
“The idea in the first of these two passages is, that the _angels_ of
God, who are elsewhere called principalities and powers, might look at
this wonderful contrivance of Jesus Christ for the execution of his laws
and the promotion of the comfort and piety of his people, and see in it
evidences of the wisdom of God. It was a _Divine_ contrivance, and
characterized by infinite wisdom. _Nothing else could possibly have done
so well._ Men have not believed this. _Men_ have all the time been
tinkering at God’s plan, and trying to mend it. _Men_ have set it aside,
and substituted others in its place; but to the _angels_ it appears the
very perfection of wisdom. And it was one object of God in having the
Church established, that his wisdom might, through it, be known to those
heavenly powers and principalities. But now, what was this plan? What
_was_ this Church? It was, as we have seen, a local assembly, in which
each member was the equal of every other, and by whom, in the name of
Christ and by authority from him, his ordinances were to be administered
and his laws enforced. What is there in these texts which requires a
grand collection of all the Churches into one, in order to make the
language appropriate? Suppose a friend in England should write to me
that he is about to publish a new history of the _steam-engine_, ‘in
order that unto kings and princes, in their palaces and on their
thrones, _might be made known through the engine the manifold skill of
the inventor_:’ what would you think of that man’s common sense, even
though he were a Doctor of Mechanics, who should insist upon it, that
though the steam-engine was a definite and well-known machine, and there
were a vast multitude of separate and distinct steam-engines, yet there
must also be, in some way or other, a vast conglomerate ‘_universal_’
engine, consisting of all the steam-engines in the world united into
one; or else the language of my friend, when he speaks of ‘showing the
manifold skill of the inventor,’ through or by ‘the engine,’ is
altogether unintelligible? Yet this is the way that doctors of divinity
reason upon a similar expression of Paul.
“In the other passage he says, ‘Unto him be glory in the Church by
Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.’ I might remark
here, that the original says ‘_in_’ Jesus Christ; and some manuscripts
read, in the Church, ‘_and_’ in Jesus Christ. But mere verbal criticism
is not necessary to set us right in regard to the point about which we
are at issue. Doctors of divinity say that the Church here spoken of
must be the Church _universal_, or else the language of the apostle is
altogether inappropriate, and has no meaning. Well, let us bring in our
_common sense_, and try it.
“I take up a book written by some great admirer of the drama, and read,
‘Let the poetry of Shakespeare be honored in the theatre by managers and
actors even to the end of time.’ Now, your doctor of divinity, reasoning
on this as he does on Paul, would assure me that although there are a
multitude of separate local theatres in almost every country of the
civilized world, yet that there must, in some way or other, be somewhere
or other some _one_ vast ‘_universal_’ theatre, consisting of all the
theatres in the world combined in one, either visible or invisible, or
else the language of this writer is inappropriate or meaningless; for
the term ‘_the theatre_,’ used in this connection, can mean no less than
this great world-embracing establishment; and, perhaps, he might refer
me for further proof to the immortal bard himself, who says that ‘all
the world’s a stage,’ etc. When will men learn to use their reason in
religious as they do in other matters?”
“I grant,” said Doctor Thinkwell, “that we have now fairly disposed of
six of these passages; but there are some remaining which I do not see
what we can do with, unless we admit the existence of a general or
universal Church: those for instance, which speak of the Church as the
‘_body_ of Christ, who is its _head_.’”
“There are a number of such passages,” replied Mr. Courtney. “The figure
is bold and beautiful; and the Apostle Paul was very fond of it, for he
employs it again and again. I have sometimes fancied that he must have
borrowed it from Luke, the beloved _physician_, for no one so well as a
physician could feel its full force and appropriateness. So far,
however, from teaching the doctrine of a universal Church, either
visible or invisible, it can only apply with any show of propriety to a
single local organization. And to remove even the shadow of a doubt in
regard to the matter, the apostle himself distinctly and in so many
words _makes this application of it_. He employs this same illustration
in his Epistle to the Colossians, in that to the Ephesians, and to the
Romans and the Corinthians. And if in any one of these places the
language may appear indefinite in its application, all the obscurity is
removed by referring to the others. In Colossians, for example, there is
the simple assertion, (Col. i. 18,) ‘And he is the head of the body, the
Church,’ and, ver. 24, ‘For his body’s sake, which is the Church.’ To
the Ephesians, Romans, and Corinthians, he presents it as an argument in
favor of meekness and mutual affection and forbearance. The members of
each Church were exhorted to love one another, for they were all _one
body_, of which Christ was _the head_. They had different gifts and
capacities: some were teachers, some were prophets, some could speak
with tongues, and some had gifts of healing; some, perhaps, were without
any of these extraordinary gifts, but none of them could be dispensed
with: each was useful in his place. (Eph iv. 11–16.) All these were
‘necessary for the edifying’ (literally, the _building_ up) ‘of the body
of Christ, that it might grow up into him which is the head, from whom
the whole, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint
supplieth, maketh increase of the body to the building up of itself in
love.’
“This language is very appropriate when used in reference to a single
Church, whose members are all bound together with the bands of Christian
brotherhood, and each is helper of the other’s joy and growth in grace.
Such a body may well be said to be ‘_fitly joined together and
compacted_.’ But now if you apply it to what people call the
‘_universal_’ Church, it is simply nonsense. _Where is your universal
Church which is thus fitly joined together and compacted?_ Are
Methodists, and Presbyterians, and Lutherans, and Baptists, and
Episcopalians thus ‘_joined together and compacted_?’
“But it is needless to argue about it. The apostle himself determines
what he meant by the body of Christ in these places, and that so plainly
and definitely as to preclude the slightest possibility of mistake.
“Turn to Romans xii. 3–8: ‘For I say, through the grace given unto me,
_to every man who is AMONG YOU_, not to think more highly of himself
than he ought to think, but to think soberly, according as God hath
dealt to every man the measure of faith. For as _we_ [each one of us]
have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same
office, so we, [Church members], being many, are one body in Christ, and
every one members one of another,’ etc.
“Now, who were these _members_ of Christ’s body? Was it the different
Churches which were all united to make one body? or was it the
_individual members of the one Church_ at Rome, to which Paul was
writing? It was ‘every man among them,’ ver. 3. It was _individual_
Church members who were members of the body, which body was _their own
Church_—not different Churches who were members or _branches_ of some
great ecclesiastical establishment.
“But now turn to 1 Cor. xii. 12, where the figure is carried out and
elaborated in all its minute details, and its intended application
expressed in so many words: ‘For as the body is one, and hath many
members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are [yet] one
body: so also is Christ.’ Ver. 14, ‘For the body is not one member, but
many.’ And then he goes on to explain how, though each member differs
from the others in its capacities and uses, yet it is not only a part of
the body, but absolutely essential to its completeness and its comfort.
The body is not all eye, nor all ear, nor all hands or feet; but God has
set every member of it in its proper place, and endowed it with capacity
to perform its proper function. The eye cannot do without the feet, and
the feet cannot get on well without the eye. And even those members that
seem most feeble and least useful are yet in their place quite
indispensable. No one can be taken away or injured but that all the rest
will suffer. And then, in the 27th verse, to remove _all possible_ doubt
about the application of the comparison, and to show to them and to us
that he did not mean anybody else, but only the Corinthian Church
itself, he says, ‘_Now YE are the body of Christ_, and members in
particular.’”
“That is sufficient, sir,” replied the Doctor. “When Inspiration itself
has made the application to a single local organization, it were sheer
madness in me to insist that it must mean something else. You can go on
to your other texts.”
“If Mrs. Percy will turn to the 5th chapter of Ephesians, she will find
the word church occurring some five or six times in twice as many
verses, and used in a sense very similar to that which we have just
examined. Let us begin at the 22d verse: ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto
your own husbands, as unto the Lord; for the husband is the head of the
wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church; and he is the Saviour of
the body. Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ so let the
wives be unto their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your
wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it;
that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the
word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having
spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and
without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.
He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his
own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the
Church. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
For this cause shill a man leave his father and mother, and shall be
joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great
mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.’”
“I do not see,” said Mr. Percy, “how we can limit the application of
this language to the Church at Ephesus. It is the Church for which
Christ died: that Church which he loved and gave himself to purchase:
that Church which he is going to present to himself as a glorious
Church, holy and pure, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.”
“Yes,” said Mr. Courtney, “it is the _same_ Church which he said he
would _build_, in Matt. xvi. 18: the same Church to which he directed
the offended brother to tell his grievance; and through which his wisdom
was to be made known to the principalities and powers of heaven, and
through which he is to be glorified for ever. And this, we have already
seen, is not any _particular_ local Church—much less is it _all_ the
Churches united into one great collective ‘universal’ Church. Read the
23d verse again. It furnishes the key to the right understanding of the
whole passage. Christ is the head of this Church, which he loved, for
which he died, and which he will sanctify and save—_just_ as the husband
is the head of the wife. ‘The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ
is the head of the Church.’ Now, what is here meant by _the wife_? Is it
all the wives in the whole wide world considered collectively as making
one great conglomerate ‘universal’ wife? Not at all. The wife is put as
a _representative word_. It stands as the general name or title of
married women. It does not gather all married women into one immense
wife, visible or invisible, ‘universal,’ but simply means that _every_
wife of the whole multitude has her own husband for her guide, her
protector, and her lawgiver. And JUST so is Christ the head, the
protector, the Saviour and ruler of his Church. As ‘the wife’ does not
here mean all wives in one, so ‘the Church’ cannot mean all Churches in
one. But the meaning is that each and every true Church of the whole
multitude of Churches is connected to Christ by a union so intimate and
tender that it resembles that between the husband and the wife; and,
indeed, it is as though every Church were a part of his very self, ‘bone
of his bone, and flesh of his flesh.’
“The word church stands here, as in the other places of this sort which
we have examined, not for a great amalgamated whole, but for _each one_
of all. Just as Paul, when he says, the unbelieving husband is
sanctified by the wife, cannot possibly mean that all the unbelieving
husbands in the world are to be regarded as constituting one great
collective ‘universal’ husband, who is sanctified by one immense
collective, visible or invisible, ‘universal’ wife, but only that each
and every unbelieving husband stands in this relation to his own
believing wife.
“This same rule applies to _all_ these passages, which seem at first
glance, and have been generally supposed, to refer to all the multitude
of Churches viewed collectively, as one great conglomerate Church. There
is no such a Church: there never was such a Church; and, from the very
nature of the case, there never can be such a Church upon the earth. We
may _imagine_ something of the kind; and as the poet ‘gives to airy
_nothings_ a local habitation and a name,’ so, when we have conceived of
all Church members as though they were assembled in one vast _ekklesia_,
we may give a name to this _conception_, and may call it the ‘Church
universal,’ but it will have no more _reality_ when we have thus named
it than it had before. It will still be a mere creation of the brain.
And I do not discover that either Paul, or any other writer in the Word,
ever conceived of it or named it. The Church of Christ, _as the
executive body in his kingdom_, must of necessity be a visible and
working, business-doing body. It cannot be invisible: it _cannot_ be
universal. If it were, it could not be an actual (_ekklesia_) assembly.
“_The KINGDOM may be universal_. The kingdom includes all the Churches.
The _visible_ kingdom includes all who have professed their faith in
Christ, and been baptized, even though they may not be members of any
Church. The Ethiopian officer was _in the visible kingdom_, when he and
Philip came up out of the water, but he had not yet united with any
Church.
“There is also an _invisible kingdom_ of Christ, which reaches farther
still. Every one who has trusted in Christ, and in his heart has taken
him for his Lord, is a subject of this kingdom. Christ’s people are not
all within _his Church_. There are some _even in the realms of
Antichrist himself_; for he says, when mystical Babylon, drunk with the
blood of the saints, is about to be destroyed, ‘Come out of her, my
people, lest ye be partaker of her plagues.’ The Church is not the
kingdom, nor is the kingdom the Church; but the Church _is an
institution of the kingdom_, just as the courts of law are an
institution within the State—making a part of the State authorized by
the laws of the State, and doing a certain kind of business under the
authority of the State, but not constituting the State. It is true,
nevertheless, that _every subject_ of the invisible kingdom is
_required_, by Christ’s law, to become, if practicable, a subject of the
_visible_, by a profession of his faith, and baptism; and it is also
true, that it is the duty and the privilege of every such subject of the
_visible kingdom_ to become, and continue, if possible, _a member of
some Church_. It is only as a Church member that he can participate in
the business of the kingdom, or partake of the emblems of the Saviour’s
broken body and poured-out blood, in remembrance of him.
“We have now examined every place but one, and that will hardly give us
any new light upon the question. It is Hebrews xii. 23—a passage
confessedly highly figurative and very obscure. It seems to me most
probable that the apostle employs the word here in its _common Greek
sense_, as denoting merely an assembly, or convocation of select
individuals; and not in its appropriated use at all. He is contrasting
the Jewish economy with the Christian dispensation in general. Their
fathers, under the law, came to Mount Sinai—a literal mountain that
could be touched; a mountain that glowed with fire, and was shrouded
with the blackness of darkness and tempest. They heard the piercing
sound of the awful trumpet, and a voice spake such fearful words that
those who heard them entreated that they might never hear them any more.
And so terrific was the scene that even Moses quaked with fear. _Such_
was the terrible aspect of the _law_. But ye, who live under the gospel,
have come to Mount Zion—a mountain of peace, security, and beauty—unto
the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an
innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and Church of the
first-born, which are written (or registered) in heaven, and to God the
Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus
the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that
speaketh better things than the blood of Abel. _These_ are the things
presented by the gospel.
“Now, they are represented as having come up to the _heavenly_
Jerusalem. It is _there_ they meet with the countless company of angels.
It is _there_ they find the ‘_panegurei_’ rendered ‘general assembly,’
but meaning, literally, a great _festal_ gathering, and there they meet
an ‘ekklesia’ of the ‘_first-born_,’ of those who are _special
favorites_; for such was the Hebrew use of the term; or of those who had
the birthright, and who were _registered_ in heaven.
“Now, the Greek ‘ekklesia’ was an assembly of called and qualified
citizens, invested with certain rights, and _registered_ in the city
records. So Paul speaks here of a _chosen assembly_ of privileged
persons, whose names were _registered_ in _heaven_, as having their
citizenship there.”
“Let it mean what it may,” said Theodosia; “I do not see that we can
learn any thing from it about the constitution and nature of the Church
of Christ _on earth_, unless it be that it should consist only of
believers whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”
“Well,” said the strange lady, “I am glad you have gotten through with
this tedious task at last. I never knew before how much the Scriptures
said about the Church.”
“Nor I,” said Theodosia; “and I am glad to find their teachings are so
uniform and simple. I shall hereafter always _know what a Church is_,
and what is _not_ a Church. Do you not think, Doctor, you will now be
able to know one when you find it?”
“I must confess, madam, that what we have found differs so much from my
preconceptions—from all that I was taught in childhood to regard as the
Church, and which I have always thought of as the Church—that I must
take a little time to go over the ground again. I want to think about
it, and pray over it; and then I may be prepared to answer your
question. At present, I am sure all the company must be weary of this
long discussion. Let us postpone any further conversation on the subject
till to-morrow.”
FOURTH DAY’S TRAVEL.
In which are discovered some of the distinctive marks by which one may
know a true Church of Jesus Christ, wherever he may chance to find it.
IT was singular what strange reports of there conversations reached that
part of the boat where the gentlemen passengers sat to play cards and
smoke cigars.
The prevailing impression which was made upon those who heard them was,
that two gentlemen and a very agreeable lady (who, by the way, thought
she was very smart) were trying their best to persuade that old infidel,
Dr. Thinkwell, that if he would only be immersed, he might be sure to go
to heaven; but if not, he was as certain to be sent to hell as there was
any God, or any truth in the Bible.
Some, however, thought there was a difference of opinion on this subject
among the disputants; and that it was _only the Baptist preacher_,
Percy, that consigned all those who had not beer immersed to endless
perdition; and that he had assured the Methodist that it would be as
hard to find a Methodist in heaven as to find a mackerel in a
horse-pond. Another declared that he had heard a part of what was said,
and could assure the crowd that they proved every thing by Scripture;
“and that,” said he, “is of itself enough to show that the Bible is of
no account; for any thing in the world that anybody wishes to prove, he
can find the text for it. Why, sirs,” continued he, “I heard that fellow
Courtney say that he had over a hundred texts to show that there was
only one Church in the world, and that one was somewhere in the old
country.”
“One thing is certain,” replied his friend: “they can’t convince me that
old Parson Tompkins don’t know what the Bible says; and he is just as
strong a Presbyterian as I ever saw.”
“The fact is,” said another, “they are all of them right, and all of
them wrong; and they ought to have some charity for one another, and not
be sending each other to hell, just because they do not happen to feel
disposed to wade to heaven through the floods of Jordan.”
Of such remarks, however, our disputants were happily ignorant; and
having themselves no doubt about the truthfulness and the sufficiency of
the sacred record, returned to it with perfect confidence that they
should be able to find in it the pattern of the Christian Church, so
perfectly and so plainly drawn that they would have no difficulty in
recognizing it, and by the pattern be enabled to identify the
institution as still existing in the world.
“If I did not fail of my purpose yesterday,” said Mr. Courtney, “I
showed you in the Scriptures—and that not from detached and isolated
texts, but from a careful comparison and elaborate examination of _all_
the places in which the word ekklesia (or Church) occurs—that this
institution is not the kingdom, but an organization for certain specific
purposes within the kingdom, like the court or the jury within our
State.”
“I have been looking over the facts and arguments again in my own mind,”
replied the Doctor, “and I must confess I see no perversion of the
texts, and no fallacy in the logic, and must admit that you are right;
but yet, I do not see that am much nearer the accomplishment of the
object which I have in view. You have convinced me that the Church is a
local and independent organization, somewhere within the kingdom; but
you have not showed me what it is, or told me where I can find it.
“I am, I trust, a member of Christ’s invisible kingdom: I desire to be
incorporated into the visible kingdom. To do so, I understand that I
must make public profession of my faith and be baptized. To whom shall I
make this profession? and by whose direction shall I be baptized? This
falls within the province of the _Church_. If these are the _laws_ of
the kingdom, and the Church is the executive and administrator of those
laws, then I must apply to the Church, in its official capacity, to
receive and to baptize me.”
“Perfectly correct, sir.”
“But I do not know what or which is the Church. _You_ will tell me it is
to be found among the Baptists. Another says, among the Presbyterians.
My parents taught me that the Episcopal was the Church; and our
Methodist friend assures me that I am at perfect liberty to take my
choice among a dozen claimants, and where I can best enjoy myself is the
true Church for me. Now, what I want to know is this: how can I tell
which of all these is right? Can you show me in the Scriptures any such
distinctive _signs or marks_ as will enable me to recognize a true
Church when I see it?”
“Most certainly I can. The Scriptures are very plain, and abundantly
explicit, on this subject.
“We have already seen that the first exemplification of the _ekklesia_
or Church of Christ was given at Jerusalem. This was the model after
which the other New Testament Churches were fashioned; and the same
pattern must regulate the constitution, membership, and rites of the
Christian Churches down to the present time.
“Human constitutions may admit of amendment, but the Divine enactment,
not being capable of improvement, can never be amended. To know,
therefore, what a Christian Church is _now_, we have only to learn what
was _essential is it then_.”
“That is self-evident, Mr. Courtney; but we must be very careful that we
do not confound what was essential with what was accidental, and,
consequently, indifferent.”
“Most assuredly, sir, we cannot be too careful; and it may, therefore,
be well for us to determine beforehand what _was of necessity
essential_. All else we may cast aside.”
“The first Churches, for instance,” suggested Theodosia, “met in private
residences, or in the Jewish synagogues; but that was a mere incident,
and they would have been just as really Churches if they had met in
splendid temples, or in the leafy forest.”
“Or,” said Mr. Percy, “in ‘the caves and dens of the earth,’ as they
were early compelled to do. But as this was an official institution
acting under authority of another, and in his name, there must have been
some _constitutional_ limitation as to its organization—as to who should
compose it, and as to the extent of its authority. Christ, as king in
this new kingdom which he set up, had enacted certain laws and
established certain ordinances. For the proper understanding and
administration of these laws and ordinances, he appointed the Church as
his judiciary and executive. Now, this judiciary and executive must
consist of certain _persons_, organized upon some definite plan, and
governed in their official work by some specific and designated rules.
Thus much, at least, must be regarded as _essential_.”
“Will it not be better,” inquired the Doctor, “to take up one point at a
time, and satisfy ourselves regarding it, before we go to another? Thus
we shall avoid any confusion, and remove even the shadow of a doubt.”
“Very good,” replied Mr. Courtney, “and let us first ascertain of what
character of _persons_ a Church must consist to be regarded by us as a
true _Church of Jesus Christ_; and I say, 1st. _It must be composed of
those who are members of the visible kingdom._ This is self-evident,
(after what we have already settled, viz.: that the Church is an
institution within the kingdom, charged with the administration of the
laws and ordinances of the kingdom;) for it is inconceivable that the
King has intrusted the execution of these laws and the administration of
these ordinances to the hands of those who are not in the kingdom; and
we have seen already that no one can be a member of the visible kingdom
who has not made a profession of _penitence_ for sin, and _faith_ in
Christ, and upon this profession _been baptized_ in obedience to his
commandment.
“But, lest this may seem to be too summary a method of disposing of the
matter, let us go back to the Record again; and, by the same means that
we discovered who are members of the visible kingdom, learn who are
members of the visible Church.
“We are agreed about one thing, I suppose; and that is, _that whatever
was essential to Church membership in the days of the =apostles=, and in
the Churches organized by them, is_ STILL ESSENTIAL.”
“Of course,” replied the Doctor, “that needs no proof; for since the
time of the apostles no one has been authorized to change the
constitution of the Church. They established it as they were instructed
by Jesus and the Holy Spirit, whom he sent to teach them, and bring all
things to their remembrance. What was settled by their precepts or by
their example, can never be unsettled, amended, or modified by any
authority upon earth. Whatever, therefore, they made the Church to be,
that _was_ the Church, and _only_ that must it be _now_ and _always_,
till Christ comes again.”
“Very good. Now let us go to the Book, and see what the apostolic
Churches were in _regard to their membership_, as this is the point now
under consideration.
“You will remember that the first example of the _ekklesia_, or Church
of Christ, was that given at Jerusalem. The people of whom it was
composed had been ‘prepared’ and ‘made ready’ by John. He had admitted
them _into the kingdom_ by baptizing them upon a profession of their
penitence and faith, according to the command of Him by whom he was
sent. The precise time when the first _Church_ was constituted out of
these materials, does not certainly appear. We first find it
_transacting the business_ of the kingdom, as an ‘ekklesia,’ in Acts i.
15, 26. It then consisted of only one hundred and twenty, who met in an
upper room, and, after prayer, proceeded to elect one of their number to
fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Judas. These were all
‘disciples:’ they had consequently been instructed. They were all
professed believers in Christ; and they were all people of prayer. We
are justified, therefore, in the conclusion that they were _all
professed believers_. They were men and women, but _no children_.
Shortly after this, we read that three thousand were added to this
_ekklesia_ in a single day; and from henceforth it is designated ‘the
_ekklesia_ [or Church] which was at Jerusalem.’ The original hundred and
twenty were praying men and praying women—disciples of the Lord. The
three thousand were such as had been ‘pricked in their hearts;’ (Acts
ii. 37;) were old enough to ‘repent’ and ‘gladly receive’ the gospel;
and when they had done so they were _baptized_, and added to the Church;
and, like the original number, ‘they continued steadfastly in the
apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in
prayers.’ (Acts i. 42.) It seems, therefore, that not a single one of
these was a little, helpless baby. Those that continued to be added
daily (verse 47) were ‘such as should be saved;’ or, as the original
reads, literally ‘_the saved_.’ They were consequently of necessity
believers, since no others can be called ‘the saved;’ and especially,
since all experience snows that infants added in their infancy, if
always saved, are often saved in sin. The five thousand others that were
added to them, (Acts iv. 4,) were those who had heard and understood the
word preached, and had believed it to the saving of their souls; and so
were the ‘multitudes, both of men and women,’ who were added as recorded
in Acts v. 14. So, also, the great company of the priests (Acts vi. 7)
were not admitted till they had become ‘obedient to the faith.’ This
Church, therefore, evidently consisted of ‘disciples’—of those who could
hear and understand the word—had believed it and repented of their sins,
and then had been baptized. Here are over eight thousand men and women
expressly mentioned, besides the ‘multitudes’ of others, who are said to
have been added to this _ekklesia_, _but there was not one of them who
was not a PROFESSED BELIEVER_. If there were any infants, Luke was a
false historian. So we way set it down as one of the characteristic
marks of a true Church of Christ that it consists of professed
believers, and not of ‘professed _believers and their children_,’ as
some teach, nor of believers and _all_ the children that can be procured
to receive the rite of baptism, whether the parents be believers or not,
as our Methodist friends maintain, in common with the largest number of
the advocates of Pedobaptism.”
“Stop a little, if you please, Mr. Courtney,” exclaimed Theodosia; “we
shall probably have occasion to refer to these characteristic marks
again and again, and I would like to have them written down.”
So saying, she produced a little tablet from her reticule, and wrote
upon it as follows:
Signs or marks by which to recognize a true Church of Jesus Christ.
I. It consists only of professed believers in Christ.
“If you consider me a party to this investigation,” said the Methodist,
“I will take the liberty to enter my protest against the adoption of
this test.”
“And so will I, by permission of this company, whom I take to be really
desirous to know all the truth as it is in Jesus.”
The last speaker was a man in the full prime of life, though a few white
hairs were prematurely mingled with his jet-black locks. He had a large
and well-proportioned person, but he was very pale, and his intense and
large black eyes looked larger and blacker in contrast with the marble
brow above, and the ashy, bloodless complexion of the face below. He had
been listening all the morning most attentively, and had occasionally
made a little note in his memorandum-book of the points presented, but
evidently with the design of using them at some other time rather than
the present. As he spoke, he laid his hand emphatically upon the edge of
the table, and showed that, however reluctant he might have been to
enrage in the conversation before, he was now quite ready to take his
part.
“I have listened,” continued he, addressing Mr. Courtney, “with much
pleasure to most of your remarks, for I love to witness a fearless and
bold investigation of any subject, and especially of one connected with
our holy religion. I have been confined to my berth from sickness till
this morning, and so have not enjoyed the pleasure of being present at
your previous conversations, which, I understand, have occupied a part
of every morning for several days; and I had no intention of taking any
part in your discussion. I hope, however, you will pardon me if I
suggest that there is really no foundation for this _test_ which you
have so plausibly set up, and endeavored to establish by such an
ingenious array of Scripture proof.”
“Of course,” rejoined the Methodist, “we cannot admit such a test as
this, for if we do, it will at _once unchurch_ almost the whole of
Christendom.”
“That is true,” said the other, “but it is not upon that ground that I
object to it. I understand that the only appeal in this discussion is to
the _Holy Word_. And although for myself I feel bound to interpret that
word in accordance with what ‘the Church’ has in every age and every
country understood it to express, yet, so fully am I convinced that the
Church has understood it according to its natural and legitimate
signification, that I am quite willing to appeal to that word as it
stands recorded, and take each sentence in its common and proper
acceptation as the ordinary sense of the language may require; and the
objection which I have to the test proposed is that it is _really
unscriptural: it is not sustained by the Record_.”
“That is, certainly,” replied Mr. Courtney, “a valid ground of
objection. We desire to find _the Church which was established by Christ
and the apostles_. We recognize no authority but the Bible. We _know_
that tradition is a liar; but God’s word we know is very truth. As
Protestants, we believe it is a _sufficient_ rule, both of our faith and
practice. What we cannot find there we do not feel bound to recognize as
of any binding force; and we, as individuals, each one accountable for
himself to the God of the Bible, feel bound each to examine and learn
its teachings for himself. If you can receive the _teachings of the
Church_, it is because you have already settled the question for
yourself what the Church really is. But that is the very question about
which we are at issue. We, as yet, know not what the Church is, nor
where it is, and consequently we can neither ask for nor receive her
interpretations. But if you will come to this Book, and let us examine
for ourselves into the meaning of the words, we will gladly entertain
any and all the objections you may offer.”
“I think, sir,” replied the Bishop, (for it was no other than the
Protestant Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of ⸻,) “I think, sir, I
understand your position; and I am willing to meet you on your own
ground; and what I say is simply this: _It is not true that_ the
apostolical Churches consisted _only_, and in _all cases_, of adult
believers.”
“Then we must set aside our test,” replied Mr. Courtney; “but you do not
expect us to take _your word _for it. You will, of course, tell us what
others were admitted to Church membership by the apostles, and point us
to the chapter and the verse, that we may see it in the Record for
ourselves.”
“Certainly, my dear sir, I will show it to you in the Book;” and as he
said so he drew the Bible towards him, and turned to the sixteenth
chapter of Acts. “It must be admitted,” said he, “that the account given
of the Church at Jerusalem makes no special mention of any but such as
you have designated; but it does not follow of necessity that there
_were no others_. We do not read that the apostles ever were baptized,
but yet we have no doubt they were; and, though there is no record made
of the baptism and consequent Church membership of the children and
families of the Jerusalem Christians, yet, since we know that
_elsewhere_ the apostles baptized the whole household upon the faith of
the head of the house, and since Peter, in that discourse in which he
first proclaimed the tidings and the terms of Christ’s salvation to the
Jews, assured them that the promise was not merely to them, but to their
children, I think we are justified in concluding that they must have
afterwards received the children of the Jerusalem Christians—though
there is no record of the fact. And this assumption is greatly
strengthened by the circumstance that we read neither in the Scriptures,
nor in any other history of those days, of any excitement or commotion
upon the subject of excluding the children, as there surely must have
been had so great a change in the economy of the Church of God been
actually made; for, under the regulations of the Jewish Church,
_children had always_ been admitted to membership, and could not now
have been excluded without occasioning at least some questioning, if not
remonstrance.”
“You may think us very unreasonable,” replied Mr. Percy, “but we can be
satisfied with nothing less than some plain precept telling us that
children _may_ become Church members, or some _example_ showing that
they _did_ become Church members. Our investigation of the Scriptures
has taught us already that the Church is a _business-doing body_: a body
to which Christ, the King, intrusted the execution of his laws and the
administration of his ordinances. We cannot conceive of such a body
being composed of little children either in whole or in part; and,
unless you will show us the command that brought them in, or some
example of their actually being in, we must doubt if they ever were in.
In the Church at Jerusalem, the only one which we have yet examined in
reference to this point, we have found the record of the admission of
eight thousand members, and great multitudes more, but they are _all_,
without _any single exception_, spoken of as men and women who could
hear the word, believe the word, receive it with gladness, and continue
in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship. There is not the slightest
intimation that they brought their children with them, or that there was
a single crying baby in the whole vast company. But you say there _may
have been_, though there is no record of it. I might say, so there may
have been _monkeys_! The thing is not impossible in the abstract. But
where is the proof? Is it in the fact that Peter said, ‘The promise is
to you and to your children?’ But that was not a promise of _Church
membership_, but only that God would ‘pour out his Spirit upon all
flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,’ etc. What has
this to do with babies? Is it in the fact that children were circumcised
under the law of Moses? But this Church was neither a continuation nor a
modification of the Mosaic dispensation. It was a _new_ institution. It
belonged to the _new_ kingdom which the prophets had foretold, and which
Christ came to establish. ‘The law and the prophets were _until John_.’
Then they were superseded by the coming of the Lord. He made the laws
for his own kingdom. If infants were members of the Jewish economy, it
was because God had _so ordained_ and expressly _declared_ through
Abraham and through Moses; and if Jesus declared as plainly or at all
that they must be members of his new institution, you can show us the
record in the New Testament, which is the law of his kingdom, as the Old
was of the other.”
“I am aware, gentlemen, that the inferences I drew do not make it
_certain_ that there were infants in the Church _as it was constituted
at Jerusalem_, but they at least make it exceedingly probable; and if we
can find that they were admitted at _any time_ or in _any place_ by
_any_ of the apostles, it will be all the same in regard to our argument
as though we could show them in the Church at Jerusalem.”
“That is quite true, sir,” replied Mr. Courtney. “Find them where you
can, and we will yield the point.”
“I was about to call your attention to the 16th of Acts, in which we
have two instances of the reception by Paul and Silas of the whole
household of a believer; and you know these are but two of several
others of a similar kind, as that of Cornelius, of Stephanas, etc.”
“Did any of these households consist of unbelievers, or of little
infants?”
“It is most likely that they did: most families have such.”
“But is there any _proof_ that there were actually any in _these_
families? Are any of them _said_ to be unbelievers or infants? On the
contrary, is it not said of the household of Stephanas, that they
‘devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints?’ Is it not expressly
said of the family of Cornelius, that the ‘Holy Spirit fell upon them,
and that they spake with tongues, and magnified God?’ (Acts x. 44–46.)
Were not Lydia’s household ‘the brethren’ (spoken of in the 40th verse
of the chapter) whom Paul and Silas comforted, after they left the
prison and returned to her dwelling? And did not Paul ‘speak the word to
all’ the household of the jailer, and did not ‘all his house’ unite with
him in believing? Ver. 34. There is, if I read rightly, just as much
evidence that they ‘_believed_,’ as there is that they were
‘_baptized_.’”
“But there are,” said the Methodist, “at least two places in which
children are recognized as Church members, and those are Col. iii. 20,
21, where Paul says, ‘Children, obey your parents in all things,’ and
Ephesians vi. 1, ‘Children, obey your parents in the Lord.’ If they were
not Church members, how could they be exhorted to obey _in the Lord_?
And, in fact, if they were not in the Church, how could Paul address
them at all, as his epistles were written to the Churches?”
“My dear sir,” replied Mr. Courtney, “do you suppose one ceases to be
his father’s _child_ when he is old enough to believe the gospel? The
child among the Greeks did not _legally_ become a man until he was
_twenty-five_, just as he does not legally become a man with us until he
is _twenty-one_. Till then he was, in the language of that age, called a
child—sometimes a _little_ child, though old enough to have been counted
a man with us. But, not to quibble about words, one thing is certain:
_these_ Ephesian and Colossian children _could not_ have been babes,
otherwise it was folly to address them. They must have been old enough
to _understand the epistle_, otherwise it could with no propriety appeal
to them. And if old enough for this, they were old enough to understand
the gospel and believe in Christ. Hence the apostle, in the beginning of
the letter, addresses the Colossians as ‘saints and faithful brethren in
Christ,’ (Col. i. 2,) and the letter to the Ephesians is addressed to
‘saints’ who were ‘faithful in Jesus Christ.’ (Eph. i. 1.) Moreover,
they were people who ‘trusted in Christ,’ and ‘who loved the saints,’
(i. 13–15.) They had been dead, but brought to life by the gospel,
(ii. I.) They ‘had been in darkness, but were now light in the Lord,’ v.
8.”
“But is there _nothing_,” asked the Doctor, “in the history of _any_ of
the other Churches at variance with the remarkable facts at Jerusalem?
Were _all_ who at any time united with any one of the Churches as
evidently believers as those were in the first Church?”
“You shall judge for yourself, sir. The next Church of which we have any
account is that at Samaria, and of that we read, (Acts viii. 12,) ‘They
believed Philip, and were baptized, both men and women.’ If there were
also children, Luke was a false historian, or he must have mentioned
them. The members of the Church at Rome are spoken of as believers, and
such believers that their ‘faith was spoken of throughout the world.’
(Rom. i. 7, 8.) To the Corinthians Paul wrote, ‘Unto the Church of God
which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, with
all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord both
theirs and ours.’ (1 Cor. i. 2.)
“The Church of the Thessalonians, Paul says, ‘received the word in much
affliction, with joy in the Holy Ghost.’ (1 Thess. i. 6.) And _nowhere_,
in _any_ place, is there any intimation given that any Church consisted,
or could consist, of any but professed believers. In fact, the admission
of any others must be for ever precluded by the very objects for which
the Church was constituted. It was to be, as we have seen, the judiciary
and executive in Christ’s kingdom. It is the Church that is to receive
members. (Rom. xiv. 1.) The Church is to cast out the wicked. (1 Cor. v.
4, 5.) The Church is to restore the penitent. (2 Cor. ii. 7, 8.) The
Church is to set apart ministers. (Acts i. 23; vi. 5.) The Church is to
send out missionaries. (Acts xiii. 3.) The ordinances of the kingdom are
in the keeping of the Church; and in the Church, when it has come
together, the Lord’s Supper is to be observed, as a perpetual memento of
his love, until Christ comes again. (1 Cor. xi. 20, 33.) Now, such
duties as these _cannot be performed by little children_, and will not
be properly performed by the unconverted. To suppose that Christ gave
such duties in charge to children and the unconverted, in short, to any
but believers, is to suppose him guilty of such folly as we would expect
to find in none but an idiot or a madman.”
“But you forget,” replied the Methodist, “that the Church did not
consist _entirely_ of such, and in our communion they have none of the
privileges of membership until they have professed a desire for
conversion, and have joined the class and gone through their six months’
probation.”
“Though the Church has always admitted little children by baptism,”
added the Bishop, with dignity, “yet the rite of confirmation his ever
been regarded as indispensable to their recognition as complete Church
members.”
“I know very well,” said Mr. Courtney, “that you have both of you these
unscriptural and anti-scriptural appendages what you call the Church. I
do not wish to discuss them now. We will come to them in regular order
by and by. We have seen in the Scriptures that Christ set up a kingdom
on the earth, as had been foretold by the prophets. In that kingdom he
alone is king. He made the laws: he appointed the ordinances. The
visible administration of these laws and ordinances he vested in ‘the
Church,’ which, we have also seen, consisted of the _believers_ in any
place who were gathered into an official assembly to transact this
business in his name. You say that this Church consisted of ‘believers
and their children,’ or of believers and _all_ children who can be
procured to be baptized. The only proof you offer that has even the
semblance of testimony is, that several families were baptized by the
apostles. Now I say, first, there is no proof in the record that there
was a single child, or an unbeliever, in any one of these families. You
can find whole _families_ of adults, and of believers, in every
neighborhood, and such these might have been, for aught that is in the
record. Then, I say, in the next place, that the record actually _shows_
that they _were_ all believers, since they are called brethren, and are
said to believe, rejoice, speak with tongues, glorify God, and give
themselves to the work of the ministry.
“This is enough, surely, to set aside your proof; but now I go still
further, and say that to have received the unconverted, whether children
or adults, would have utterly subverted the very objects for which the
Church was instituted, and consequently it would have been no less than
madness to admit them. I know we differ here, because we differ in
regard to what the _objects are_ for the accomplishment of which the
Church was constituted. You Episcopalians look upon it as the
instrumentality of salvation. You baptize the children and receive them
into the Church to _save their souls_. You pretend thus to _regenerate_
and _make them members of Christ_. The _Scriptures_ teach, however, that
they must be _first_ made members of Christ, (by faith,) and _then_ made
members of the Church of Christ. They do not come into the Church _for_
salvation, but they are entitled to its privileges and required to
assist in the transaction of its business, because they are already of
the saved. They must _belong to Christ_ before they can be qualified to
_act for Christ_. He does not set men and women (or little babies
either) to administer the laws and ordinances of his kingdom until they
have first become the willing subjects of the King. And if the Church
be, as we have seen that it is, the authorized executive of his kingdom,
it follows, of course, that _none who are not professed believers upon
him can be admitted to its membership_. To admit them would be to place
the management of the affairs of his kingdom in the hands of his
enemies.”
“But, my dear sir,” exclaimed the Methodist, “we do not intrust the
management of the _business_ of the Church to the hands of the baptized
children of the Church.”
“That is very true, sir. You do not intrust it to the children nor to
the adults. You do not intrust it to the Church, at all. You preachers
have usurped the whole authority, and vested it in yourselves. The
Church has nothing to do but to reverently obey you, as you have sworn
reverently to obey your bishop, or chief minister. And you, sir,”
addressing the Episcopalian bishop, “have also taken upon yourself to
lord it over God’s heritage. But we will come to speak of these things
hereafter. What I wish to say now is simply this: you both baptize
little children to make them _members of the Church_. When you have done
so, I suppose you will not deny that they are members; and if they are
members, _how dare you exclude them from any right or any privilege that
Christ conferred upon Church members_? Does the Word anywhere authorize
you to exclude Church members (except for open sin) from the table of
the Lord, until they become ‘seekers,’ or until they have learned a few
questions and answers in the catechism, and have had the bishop’s hands
put on their heads? Does the word anywhere authorize you to drive any
Church member (except for open sin) out of a business meeting of the
Church, or to deprive him of equal privileges there with any other
member? If it does, you can show me the text. If it does not, your baby
members are entitled to equal privileges with any other members.”
“Not at all, sir,” replied the bishop. “They would be excluded from an
equal participation in the privileges and duties of Church members, from
their very incapacity properly to enjoy or perform them; and,
consequently, no express scriptural injunction was required.”
“But if that be so,” replied Mr. Courtney, “it is surely an act of most
consummate folly on your part to make Church members of them. If they
can neither enjoy the privileges nor perform the duties of Church
members, what business have they in the Church? Why make them members
till they are qualified to act the part of members?”
“It is useless, sir,” said the bishop, very solemnly, “for us to dispute
upon this point, until we have agreed upon another; and that is, whether
Christ did not institute the ordinances of his house as a means of
salvation?”
“O, well, if you baptize the baby to save its soul, that is another
matter; and if you make it a Church member to give it the benefits of
Church forms, it can perhaps receive them. But I have not been able to
find in the book any authority for conferring these or any other Church
privileges upon any but the penitent and the believing. The Christian
dispensation was introduced by John; and John received and baptized none
who had not professed their penitence and faith.
“Christ was himself the next preacher in this dispensation; and he, like
John, proclaimed that men should first repent—should first believe, and
_then_ should be baptized.
“Peter was the first to preach the gospel, after Jesus had gone up; and
he said, like his Master, ‘Repent and be baptized.’ And they were not
baptized till they had ‘gladly received the word.’
“When Philip preached Christ to the Samaritans, they first believed, and
then they were baptized.
“When the eunuch asked for baptism, he was informed that it could be
given only on condition of his faith.
“Paul was not baptized until he was a penitent believer.
“The household of Cornelius were not baptized until the Holy Ghost had
fallen on them, thus giving evidence that they belonged to Christ.
“Lydia was not baptized until the Lord had first opened her heart, so
that she attended to and believed the gospel, as it was preached by
Paul.
“The jailer believed in Christ, with all his house, and then they were
baptized.
“Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, with
all his house; and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and then
they were baptized.
“All the Churches to whom the epistles were addressed, consisted, as we
have seen, of believers in Christ. And, in the language of the famous
Pedobaptist, Richard Baxter, author of the Saint’s Rest, I can say: ‘_In
a word, I know of no one word in Scripture that giveth us the least
intimation that ever man was baptized without the profession of a saving
faith, or that giveth the least encouragement to baptize any upon any
other faith._’”
“I think, gentlemen,” said Doctor Thinkwell, “we shall be obliged to let
this test stand on our tablet. It seems to me that, if _any thing can be
proved_ from Scripture, this has been, namely, _that the first Churches
consisted only of professed believers_. And now let us hasten on, or we
will finish our voyage before we have completed our examination. Is
there any other peculiarity which invariably and of necessity
characterized these ancient Church members?”
“Yes, sir,” replied Mr. Courtney. “They were, of necessity, every one of
them _baptized_; for it was by the rite of baptism that they were
admitted into the _visible kingdom_; and the visible Church could not go
_outside_ the visible kingdom for her members.”
“Then you do not claim that baptism is the door of entrance into the
_Church_?”
“Strictly speaking, it is not, sir. It is the way of entrance into ‘the
visible _kingdom_;’ and through the kingdom to the Church. No one can
reach the Church, except through baptism; but every baptized believer is
not a Church member. The eunuch was in the visible kingdom as soon as he
was baptized; but he was not a member of any Church. The Church consists
of such baptized believers as have voluntarily associated themselves
together according to the scriptural constitution, to administer
Christ’s ordinances, and enforce his laws among themselves. But it is
just as true that no one can be a Church member who has not been
baptized, as though baptism were itself the door of entrance into the
Church.”
“Excuse me, Mr. Courtney,” said Theodosia; “but do not Baptists receive
members into the Church by baptism?”
“Certainly not, madam. They sometimes think they do; and, in fact, a
_formal_ admission is dispensed with, and their membership is taken for
granted. But the facts are these: The candidate comes before the Church
and asks for baptism. (If it were not convenient to come to the Church,
he might ask it of any one whom the Church had previously authorized to
administer it. But it is always desirable and prudent to have the advice
and sanction of the Church when it is practicable.) The Church, after
hearing his experience of grace, in order that it may be able to judge
whether he is really a penitent believer, directs him (if his experience
be satisfactory) to be baptized. And then, after his baptism, the
members of the Church, or the pastor in their name, gives him the
right-hand of fellowship, in token of his reception as a member. He
first gives himself to Christ in his heart, by faith; then he goes to
Christ’s people, and makes _profession_ of his penitence and faith. Upon
this they are authorized and required to admit him into the _visible
kingdom_ by baptism; and he then gives himself to some company
(_ekklesia_) of Christ’s people, to walk with them in all Christ’s
ordinances: to aid them in their labors, and be subject to them in love.
In general, however, the application for baptism is regarded by both
parties as an application for reception into the Church as a member, and
the determination that he ought to be baptized is accompanied by a
resolution to regard him as a member so soon as he shall have been
baptized; and he is, therefore, immediately upon his baptism, a member,
to all intents and purposes, even without any formal act of
recognition.”
“All this is nothing to our present purpose,” said Mr. Percy. “The
question before us is not whether one is made a Church member _by_
baptism, but whether he can be a member _before_ baptism and without
baptism? Whether baptism makes him a member, or only qualifies him to
become a member, it is certain that _all_ the members of the apostolic
Churches were baptized people.”
“Let me so write it in the tablet,” said Theodosia. She wrote, and it
then read thus:
Signs or marks by which to recognize a true Church of Jesus Christ.
I. It consists only of professed believers in Christ.
II. Its members must have been baptized upon a profession of their
faith.
“I think, my dear,” said Mr. Percy, when she read it aloud, “you have
slightly exceeded our instructions in adding that last clause. We have
seen that the Scriptures teach that they were all believers; and we know
they were all baptized; but our friends here may object to your making
the baptism _necessarily subsequent to a profession of faith_, for that
will cut off even real Christians who chanced to be baptized _before_
they were old enough to believe or make profession.”
“What if it does?” she answered. “I thought we were to decide these
questions by the teachings of the Book; and if the Book teaches that
Church members must be professed believers, it teaches just as plainly,
and by the same passages, that baptism must _follow_ faith. It was
‘repent and be baptized,’ ‘believe and be baptized,’ that John and
Christ commanded; and all Church members that we read of, _first_
repented and believed, and were _then_ baptized upon _profession_ of
their penitence and faith. We have not found a single case of baptism
_first_, and faith and penitence coming after it.”
“She is right, sir,” said the Doctor, “so far as our investigations have
gone; but is it certain that we have seen _all_ teachings of the Word
upon this point?”
“If there were even the shadow of proof that any such instance existed,
we should have had it paraded by our Pedobaptist friends long ere this,”
said Mr. Courtney. “They have told us that infants were circumcised,
and, therefore, _ought to be baptized_: that Christ took little children
in his arms and _blessed_ them, and, therefore, they _ought to be
baptized_: that he told his disciples to _let them come_ to him, in
order that he might put his hands or them and bless them, and,
therefore, they _ought to be baptized_: that the word of God nowhere
_forbids_ their baptism in direct terms, and, therefore, they _ought to
be baptized_: they tell us that children are born sinners, and,
therefore, _ought to be baptized_: that they are called holy, and,
therefore, they _ought to be baptized_. They tell us that they _are born
in the Church_, and, therefore, _ought to be baptized_; and that they
_ought to be baptized to bring them into the Church_. They give a vast
number and a great variety of strange and contradictory reasons why they
_ought to be baptized_; but they have never presented _any single
instance_ in which either an infant, or any other who had not made
profession of penitence or faith, _ever WAS_ baptized by John or Christ,
or any of the apostles—except so far as they may take it for granted
that the baptized _households_ or families were not believing families—a
supposition which we have seen is utterly untenable.”
“If,” said Theodosia, “the baptism of these _families_ proves that
_little infants_ were baptized, I will undertake to prove that _little
infants voted for General Taylor_ when he was chosen President; for I
can find a dozen men who will each of them testify that he and all his
family voted for the hero of Monterey and Buena Vista. But, since little
infants are not capable of voting, and since the Constitution requires
that every voter shall be twenty-one years of age, I take it for granted
that these families consisted of grown-up boys, or others legally
qualified to vote. What would you think, Doctor, of a writer on the
constitutional conditions of citizenship in the United States, who
should maintain that little infants were certainly entitled to vote, for
the history of the country records several instances in which _whole
families_ had voted for Washington, for Jefferson, for Jackson, and
Taylor!”
“_I_ would think,” interrupted Mr. Courtney, “that he exhibited quite as
much common sense, and quite as much acquaintance with the rules of
logic, as those doctors of divinity who maintain that infants must have
been baptized, because among the thousands and thousands who believed
and were baptized in the apostles’ days there were some half a dozen
households.
“But we are discussing again a position which we had already settled. We
have seen that none but professed believers could be Church members; and
we are now to inquire whether they could be Church members before they
had been _baptized_?”
“I hardly think it necessary to make an argument on this point,” said
Mr. Percy, “since _all_ denominations, so far as I know, substantially
agree that no one can be admitted to the Church without that ceremony
which they call baptism.”
“I would be glad, nevertheless,” replied the Doctor, “to know upon _what
scriptural authority_ all denominations rest this item of their faith
and practice.”
“That is very easily made out, Doctor. 1st. Christ _commanded_ them to
believe and be baptized, and this is, therefore, after profession of
faith and penitence, the first formal act of external obedience.
“2d. All of whom we read in the Book were at once baptized upon
profession of their faith. The three thousand who believed upon the day
of Pentecost, and all the many thousands who were added to them in
various places afterwards, were all baptized. No instance is on record
of one being received without it.
“3d. The first Christian Churches were habitually addressed _as
baptized_ persons. We are told that they had ‘_been baptized into
Christ_,’ ‘_buried with him by baptism_,’ and the like.
“These proofs are so strong and complete that, although some have
dispensed with any _personal profession of faith_, yet no denomination
claiming to be a Christian Church has ever dispensed with what they
called baptism, or considered those as complete Church members who had
not received _something_ which they regarded as baptism.”
“How, then,” asked the Doctor, “can this be a characteristic or
_distinguishing_ mark, since all the claimants possess it in common?”
“The true Church, sir,” said Mr. Courtney, “must not merely have a rite
which is _called_ baptism: it must have actual baptism: it must have
_that very baptism_ which Jesus Christ commanded, and _these first
Churches practiced_. That cannot be a true Church of Christ which has
_abolished_ his baptism and _substituted some other ceremony_ in the
place of it, even though that other ceremony should be called by the
same name with his.”
“But, my dear sir,” exclaimed the Doctor, “don’t you see that if we
attempt to make any practical application of this mark, we shall be
first obliged to go over the whole baptismal controversy in order to
ascertain what _was_ the act which Christ in fact commanded?”
“Not at all, sir. It will not be necessary to _prove_ what was the
original act, since they themselves admit it; nor will it be needful to
prove that they have _changed_ it, for they have, some of them at least,
confessed it, and openly claim _the right_ to change it again—as often
in their discretion as they may think best.
“Very well. Then we may consider ourselves as having taken at least two
steps in our investigation. We have ascertained that a Church, as
regards its members must consist of professed believers, and that these
believers must have beet baptized. What have we next?”
“If you will permit me to suggest another mark,” said Mr. Percy, “I will
remind you that in our examination yesterday we found that the Church,
when regarded as an actual, visible, working body, was in _every
instance_ a local and an _independent_ body. Now, since it is the actual
and visible Church for which we are looking, we will find it a local,
separate, and independent organization, complete in itself, and _not
bound up with others in any great ecclesiastical establishment_. It
cannot be any collection of federated, religious societies, mutually
bound together and subordinated to each other, or to some common head.
It stands alone, supreme under Christ, as regards its own membership;
but having no authority beyond the pale of its own number. There is, in
the Scriptures, no appearance of subordination of Church to Church, of
one Church to many, or of all to one. There were no territorial Churches
and no national Churches. The Church at Jerusalem was _one_ Church: the
Church at Antioch was _another_ Church: the Church at Ephesus was
another. Each of the multitude of the Churches which were ‘scattered
about throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria,’ was just as much
a Church as the Church at Jerusalem. There was no Church of Judea
including them all; nor did any one of them, or all combined, pretend to
exercise authority over any other.”
“Certainly,” said the Doctor. “If we have discovered _any_ thing about
the Church, we have discovered that it is a local and independent
organization.”
“And this is equally true of the Church,” said Mr Courtney, “whether we
consider it as an actual, visible, and working _assembly_, met together
for the worship of God and the administration of the laws and ordinances
of Christ, or whether, in accordance with the usage of modern language,
we employ the term generically to signify our _mental conception_ of all
the visible Churches in the world, as if they were united in _one great
universal assembly_. The whole cannot be different from the parts of
which it is composed.
“If every true Church is, as we have seen, a local and independent
organization, then the aggregate of them all cannot include any that are
not thus local and independent; and if federated ecclesiastical
establishments are not true and scriptural Churches, then such
establishments can make no part of a true and scriptural _conception_ of
a visible Church universal.”
“It is of no consequence at all to me,” said the Doctor, “what this
_imaginary_ body may be composed of. I want to find the real. I can
readily conceive of a great visible Church universal, including all true
visible Churches. I can conceive, also, of a great visible Church,
including all that claim to be Churches. I can conceive of a vast
_invisible_ Church, including all believers, past, present, and to come;
but these are not the objects of my search. I want to find that visible
organization to which Christ has intrusted the administration of his
laws and ordinances; and I am satisfied that when I find it, it will be
a _local and independent organization_, composed of baptized believers.”
“Let me write this third mark in my tablet,” said Theodosia.
When she had written, the tablet read thus:
Signs or marks by which to recognize a true Church of Jesus Christ.
I. It consists only of professed believers in Christ.
II. Its members must have been baptized upon a profession of their
faith.
III. It is a local organization, and independent of all others.
“I do not feel quite satisfied with this last mark,” said Mr. Courtney.
“It tells the truth, but not the whole truth. Each Church of Jesus
Christ is a separate organization, complete in itself, and competent of
itself to exercise all the functions of a Church. It can receive
members. Rom. xiv. 1. It can exercise discipline (1 Cor. v. 1–13) by
expelling or suspending members. It can restore them upon repentance. 2
Cor. ii. 1–11. It can reject false teachers, and cast out those who
hold false doctrines. Tit. iii. 10; Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20. It can elect
its own officers. Acts vi. 1–7; xiv. 23. It can ordain and send out
missionaries, or evangelists, to found other Churches, which, however,
when established, shall be as independent as itself. Acts xiii. 1. And
it can do all that, in the Scripture, is predicated of any Church of
Christ. But, while it is independent of all other Churches or
federations in its organization, and in the exercise of its functions,
it is so absolutely dependent on Christ its Lord and King, that it _can
make no laws_, but only execute the laws which Christ has made; and it
can exercise _no authority_, but such as was specially delegated to it
by Christ. It is simply and only the _executive_ body to which Christ
has intrusted the administration of his kingdom, according to the
constitution and laws which he made for its instruction and government.
I would therefore have preferred that when you wrote it down as an
_independent_ organization, you had added some word to slow the limit of
this independence.”
“I think, sir,” replied Mr. Percy, “that we will understand well enough
what we mean by our mark, especially after your explanation; but let me
ask if this absolute recognition of _Christ as its only head and
lawgiver_ does not itself constitute one characteristic mark of a true
Church? If it is the executive of his kingdom, it must, of course,
execute the laws of the King. Christ is its sole and only Lord. He makes
the laws. It is _as his laws_, and only as such, that the Church can
execute them; and in doing this it must proceed in strict accordance
with the requirements of the King. The executive cannot make laws for
itself. It is bound by those already made, and must carry them into
effect alike, whether it approves or disapproves. It cannot abrogate
them. It cannot nullify them. It cannot change or modify them. It can
only ask, What was the intention of the Lawgiver? What did he say, and
what did he mean by what he said? When this is known, it has no
discretion left. If it changes the law; if it refuses to execute it as
it was given, it is a virtual rebellion and _secession_ from the
dominion of the King. It is no longer _his executive_. It is no longer
_his Church_. But if it goes still farther, and permits other lords to
make laws for it, and acknowledges allegiance to other powers, then it
has not only rebelled against and seceded from the rightful sovereign,
but has united with his enemies, or at least with his rivals. It is,
then, not only no longer a Christian Church, but it is _anti_-Christian;
not only not Christ’s, but against Christ’s Church. Nor will it make any
legal difference whether these new lords and lawgivers make their new
regulations in their own name, and openly and avowedly on their own
authority, or whether they claim in the name of Christ a right _which he
has never given them_. A Church of Christ has Christ _alone_ for her
King and Lawgiver, and can never acknowledge the authority of any man or
body of men—not even of herself—to change one jot or tittle of Christ’s
law, or to institute new laws or regulations in regard to her
ordinances, her terms of membership, her rules of discipline, or any
thing else that comes within her province as a Church of Christ.
“That is most certainly an indisputable conclusion, which grows of
necessity out of the admission that Christ is her only King. And I do
not suppose that any man, or body of men, claiming to be Christians,
will deny that Christ is the head over all things to his body, which is
the Church, or that any thing is to be received by the Church as a rule
either of faith or practice which does not rest upon ‘Thus saith the
Lord,’ as its authority.”
Mrs. Percy took up her tablet again, and entered this mark, and it then
read—
SIGNS OR MARKS BY WHICH TO KNOW A TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST
1st. It consists only of professed believers in Christ.
2d. Its members must have been baptized upon a profession of their
faith.
3d. It is a local organization, and independent of all others.
4th. It has Christ alone for its King and Lawgiver, and recognizes no
authority but his above its own.
“We have now seen,” said Mr. Courtney, “the characteristics of a
scriptural Church in regard to its _membership_ and its _constitution_.
We need yet to learn what were its peculiar _doctrines_, and what were
the _objects_ or purposes of its organization.”
“I remember,” said Theodosia, “that when we were studying the nature of
the _kingdom_, the other day, we found that all its subjects were
voluntary subjects, who had come of their own free will and accord, and
had sought for admission. Is it not also a characteristic of a Church
within this kingdom that its members must have become such by their own
personal and voluntary act?”
“Certainly it is; and I thank you for reminding us of it; for I had
well-nigh forgotten it,” said Mr. Courtney. “You may add this mark also
to your tablet; for nothing is more certain than that the members of
these first Churches (which must ever be the pattern of the true
Churches of Christ) became members with their own personal consent, and
by their own voluntary act. Each one for himself ‘gladly received the
word.’ They voluntarily ‘consorted with’ the company of the believers.
They were not driven to it by the government, with fines, imprisonments,
and stripes. They were not forced by the authority of parents, or of
masters. They were not carried in while they were little helpless babes,
and made Church members without their own knowledge or consent. Nothing
is plainer than the fact that the members of Christ’s Church were
designed to be converted people—those who had been renewed in the temper
and disposition of their minds—who had been regenerated by the power of
God, and made new creatures in Christ Jesus. They had been aliens, but
now were sons. They had been in darkness, but now were light in the
Lord. They had lived after the flesh, but now they lived after the
Spirit. Old things had passed away, and all things had become new. Those
who had thus been changed would love Christ and love his people, and
desire to be associated with them. Such would desire the prosperity of
Christ’s kingdom, and in their hearts would pray for its advancement.
Such, and only such, could be with any propriety intrusted with the
management of the business and the administration of the ordinances of
the kingdom. Religion is a voluntary thing. Religion is a _personal_
matter. It has to do with personal opinions, personal feelings, and
personal actions. No one can be religious by proxy. He must repent for
himself, believe for himself, love the Lord Jesus for himself: and for
himself he must obey, by submitting to baptism as the ordinance of
Christ, and uniting with his Church as the people of Christ.”
“I do not see,” said the Doctor, “that there can be any objection to
this test. We certainly did not find in the Scriptures any instance of
involuntary Church membership.”
Theodosia wrote in the tablet a fifth mark, namely:
“5th. Its members have become such by their own voluntary act.”
“Now, what shall we say in regard to its doctrine?” asked the Doctor.
“That,” replied Mr. Courtney, “is a much more difficult question than
would at first glance appear; for, while all agree that there are
certain fundamental doctrines, upon which the whole gospel system is
based, it would take too much time, and would too much complicate our
present investigation, to examine and determine precisely what they are,
and just how far a Church may lose them, or depart from a full belief of
them, without ceasing to be a true Church of Jesus Christ.”
“There is, however,” said Mr. Percy, “at least _one_ doctrine which is
involved in the very nature of the ancient profession of faith; and that
is, the Divine nature and Messiahship of Jesus.”
“So also,” said Theodosia, “was the doctrine that man is a sinner, and
Christ the only Saviour; for these ideas are both involved in penitence
and faith.”
“It will answer all our purposes,” replied Mr. Courtney, “to say that a
true Church of Jesus must believe and teach the fundamental doctrines of
the gospel of Christ. We shall not probably disagree about what these
doctrines are, so far as to make any difficulty in the way of applying
our test; and if we happen to do so, the question can be settled then as
well as now.”
Theodosia added therefore this sixth mark:
“6. It holds, as articles of faith, the fundamental doctrines of the
gospel of Christ.”
“We need now, it seems to me, but one thing,” said Mr Percy, “to
complete our tablet. It is not every association of Church members, or
every _assembly_ of Church members, that constitutes a Church of Christ.
His Church was instituted for a specific purpose. It has certain objects
in view: certain duties to perform; and it can only be regarded _as a
Church_, when it is considered in its relation to these objects and
duties.”
“That is very true, sir. There may be associations or meetings
consisting exclusively of real members of a true Church, and even
including all the members of such a Church, organized for some secular
or moral, or even for a religious purpose, and yet it would not be a
Church.
“The ekklesia of Christ is not a mere association or assembly of his
real and visible people; but it is an _official_ assembly, for specific
purposes, clearly designated in the Word.
“The jury is not a mere assembly of twelve men; or of twelve men
properly qualified to be jurors; or of twelve actual jurors (when
released from their official duties as jurors and) engaged in some other
business. It is ‘_a jury_’ only when properly qualified, duly organized
and acting in its _official_ capacity, in accordance with the laws of
its existence. So the Church is not a mere assembly of Church members,
when met together for any of the common or uncommon purposes of life;
but only an official assembly, for the purposes enjoined in _the law_ of
the King, by whose authority it exists, and in whose name it acts.”
“Do you mean to say,” asked Theodosia, “that the Church is in being only
so long as it is in official session? Would a Church cease to be a
Church when it is dismissed, and only become one again when it has again
assembled?”
“Only in the same sense, madam, that our legislature ceases to be a
legislature when it adjourns for dinner. Its members are still members,
duly qualified and reads to act; but they _cannot_ act _as a
legislature_ till they come together again as an official body. And if,
in the interval, nay of the members, or all of the members, had gone to
a political meeting, and passed resolutions, or nominated candidates, or
formed a temperance society, those would _not_ have been acts of ‘_the
legislature_,’ and would have no legal sanction. So the Church, when it
has been dismissed, still exists in the being and qualifications of its
members; but it can perform no Church action, as the judiciary and
executive in the kingdom of Christ, until it shall have come together as
an _official body_. But we were about to inquire concerning the specific
objects for which Christ’s Church was constituted. These we must learn,
as we have all that we know about the Church, from the teachings of the
book. We must ascertain what the Church was _instructed to do_, and what
the apostolic Churches actually _did_, in their official capacity, as
Churches of Jesus Christ.
“This will not give us much trouble, after the examination we have
already made. From the instructions which the Master gave to the
offended brother, Matthew xviii., we have seen that one of its duties
was to adjust disagreements which might arise among its members. From
Acts i. 22, vi. 5, we learn that it was to choose its own officers. From
Acts xi. 22, xiii. 3, we see that it was its province to set apart and
send out missionaries. From 1 Cor. v. 13, we find it was to exclude the
sinful and disorderly; and from 2 Cor. ii. 8, to restore such upon
evidence of their repentance. From 1 Cor. xi. 20–34, we learn that it
was to regularly observe the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, in
remembrance of him. From Rev. ii. 14, 15, that it was to take proper
measures to preserve the purity of doctrine; and from 2 Thess. iii. 6,
and 1 Cor. xi. 2, that it must maintain the ordinances in their purity,
as it had received them.”
“I think,” said Mr. Percy, “we might sum up the whole matter in few
words. The Church is the visible executive and judiciary of the kingdom.
As the executive, it receives members, elects officers, ordains
ministers, sends out evangelists, or missionaries, observes ordinances,
and provides for the regular and public worship of God. As the
judiciary, it settles disputes, excludes the disorderly, restores the
penitent, condemns false doctrines, and does whatever is needful to
preserve the peace and purity of its members.
“We have found no instance of its exercising _legislative_ powers. It
makes no new laws. It ventures not to repeal, or even modify, the laws
of Christ: this were to invade the prerogative of the King.
“The only instance which _seems_, at first glance, like an act of
legislation, is that in which the _apostles and elders_ associated the
Church with them in their decree about circumcision. Acts xv. 22, 23.
But it was to the apostles and elders that the Church at Antioch had
sent. And care is taken to show that the binding authority of the decree
is not in the Church, but in the Holy Ghost. And from Acts xvi. 4 we
learn, that although the _brethren_ had been apparently associated with
the inspired apostles and elders, yet _it was only in the sending of the
messengers_; for the decree is here expressly called the decree of the
_apostles and elders_ which were at Jerusalem, as distinct and separate
from the Church. _They_ were inspired and fully authorized to
_legislate_; but the _Church_ could only execute the laws which the King
had enacted, or might enact, through those whom he inspired to speak his
words.”
FIFTH DAY’S TRAVEL.
In which the Tablet is completed—The great difficulty—A new character.
WHEN our company had assembled on the morning of the fourth day, they
found themselves surrounded by a group of eager listeners. The
discussion had begun to excite great interest among the passengers. Even
the irreligious were delighted to find something which would in some
degree relieve the monotony of the tiresome voyage; and Church polity
became a prominent subject of discussion in every part of the boat.
It must be admitted, however, that, except in the ladies’ cabin, where
Mr. Percy, Theodosia, and Mr. Courtney could speak for themselves, the
party which they represented met with very little favor. The prevailing
sentiment was, that all who professed faith in Christ, and obedience to
his laws, belonged to his Church. And it was regarded a sufficient
answer to any argument in favor of a strict adherence to the scriptural
model, that if it were received, _it would at once unchurch some of
these professors_.
Here is, in fact, the great difficulty in the way of the general
reception of the truth in regard to this subject. Every professor of
religion who has united with any religious society, fully believes that
he is a member of Christ’s Church; and his mind will receive nothing as
truth which is opposed to that belief. If you reason with him out of the
Scriptures, and show him the New Testament model of a Church, and point
out to him the utter discrepancy between his society and the institution
of Jesus Christ, he may not attempt to reply. He probably will not, even
in his own mind, try to reconcile the differences; but he will say to
himself, “I am not able to understand all the teachings of the
Scriptures, but I know that _my good minister_, and my dear brethren,
and myself, _belong to the Church_; and any doctrine that turns us out
is false.” This is an impervious shield: no shaft of Scripture truth can
penetrate it: no power of logic can wrest it from his hand. He will
readily receive any theory of the Church which counts himself as a part
of the Church, even though it should include the practical infidelity
and open profligacy of material Christianity—all the abominations of
Antichrist himself. But any theory, however scriptural, which excludes
his darling self and those whom he esteems as honest Christian people,
is to him a simple absurdity, about which it is not worth while to
reason.
It is, nevertheless, a fearful truth, that all _cannot_ be right. _If
there be any Scripture pattern, men have departed from it at their
peril_. Christ’s Church must be what Christ established and enjoined
upon his people to maintain. This is one definite and specific thing,
plainly described and easily recognized in the Holy Word. And if
Christ’s people have been blinded by the mists and clouds of traditional
error, and led astray by leaders blinded like themselves, he may forgive
them: he will forgive them. But he makes it now their solemn and
imperative duty to go back to THE BOOK, and “inquire for the old paths,”
and return to that organization which he established.
“Will you do me the kindness,” asked the bishop of Theodosia, when they
were seated around the table, “to let me see the little tablet you were
making yesterday?”
“Certainly, sir.”
He ran his eye down its several heads, and, directing his question to
Mr. Courtney, asked what, according to those rules, would be his
definition of the Church?
“_The Church_, sir,” replied the schoolmaster, “_is the local and
visible judiciary and executive of the kingdom of Christ_. It consists
of such members of the kingdom as have voluntarily associated together
for the maintenance of the public worship of God, the observance of
Christ’s ordinances, and the execution of his laws. But, if I do not
forget, we had not quite completed our tablet yesterday. When finished,
it will read thus:
Signs or marks by which to know a true Church of Christ.
1st. It consists only of professed believers in Christ.
2d. Its members have been baptized upon a profession of their faith.
3d. It is a local organization, and independent of all others.
4th. It has Christ alone for its King and Lawgiver, and recognizes no
authority but his above its own.
5th. Its members have become such by their own voluntary act.
6th. It holds as articles of faith the fundamental doctrines of the
gospel of Christ.
“Now, these gentlemen, who have been present all the time, will bear me
witness that we have found each of these marks distinctly recognized in
this HOLY WORD. The claimant to Church honors, which cannot show these
marks, is therefore not a _scriptural_ Church. It is not _the_ Church
which Christ established. It is not that Church which he founded on the
rock of faith. It is not that Church which he authorized and ordained,
to exercise the authority of his kingdom in his name.”
“I do not feel disposed to discuss these positions with you,” replied
the bishop. “This is no fitting time or place for such a discussion. I
am willing to grant that _you_ verily believe that you have, after
careful and diligent search, discovered that these are the distinctive
and peculiar marks of a true Christian Church, as laid down in the
Scriptures. I am willing to grant that these intelligent ladies and
gentlemen, who have so patiently listened to you, and seen you turn from
chapter to chapter, and read the very verse on which your opinion rests,
may have been compelled to agree with you; and yet I will show you that
you have great cause to distrust your own conclusions.
“I suppose that you will not deny that you, as well as other men, are
human, and, therefore, liable to err. I do not now say that you _are_
wrong, but only intimate the possibility that you _may be_ wrong. If you
are right, the Church of Christ is a very insignificant affair. I do not
know where it is. I have read no account of it. I have no certain
knowledge of its existence; for I confess to you that I have not seen or
heard of any body of people, claiming to be a Church, who unite in
themselves _all_ that I think would be demanded by that tablet. But if
there be somewhere, in some secluded neighborhood, such an assembly, or,
if in some strange country there should be a hundred or a thousand such
assemblies, it is certain they have never been recognized as the Church
of Christ by any but themselves; and when this little company of
ignorant people, unknown to history, and unknown to scientific theology,
sets up its claim not merely to be a _part_ of the Church, but to be
itself the Church, and the whole Church, and the only Church, against
the countless thousands of the most devoted followers of Jesus, not in
this age alone, but in all the past, from the days of the apostles down
to the present hour, does it not seem, even to yourself, that it is
_more likely_ that you and your little company are wrong than that all
the congregated and successive hosts of God have been mistaken?”
“If it were true,” said Mr. Courtney, smiling, “that the multitude were
always right, I would concede much to your suggestion. It might, in that
case, be prudent for no man to go to _the Bible_ for his religious
faith, but simply to inquire what opinions are held by the _majority_.
If we adopt this plan, we shall, as Christians, all be driven into
Romanism; and then, as men, into idolatry; for I suppose at least
two-thirds of all the race are worshippers of idols, and a vast majority
of all professing Christians are Roman Catholics. For myself, I prefer
to be guided by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles rather than by
the vast and countless majority. I say with Paul, that even though ‘an
angel from heaven’ teach any other doctrine than that which I find here
in this Holy Book, let him be accursed. I dare not follow the multitude
to do evil.”
“Oh, no, my dear sir! you do not understand me. I do not deny that the
Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice. I am willing this
question shall be tried by the Word; but what I say is this: You and
your little company are more likely to be mistaken in _your
understanding_ of the Scriptures than all the multitudes of Christendom
in every age. We must be governed by the Word; but is it the Word as
_you_ and your little company understand it? or as countless thousands
of the people of God, as they are known to history, have understood it,
and practiced it in every age? Is the faith of the ancient Church to go
for nothing? Is the understanding of the Fathers to go for nothing? Is
the practice of the holy martyrs to go for nothing? The Church of
Christ, my dear sir, is not a verbal abstraction, to be gathered out of
the Testament, and written down upon a tablet. It is an historical
verity. We can trace it on the map of history from the earliest
beginnings down to the present time. At first a little stream, then a
mighty river: at length a vast sea, and now a mighty ocean, which is, at
last, destined to become a world-enveloping flood, which shall overwhelm
all enemies and all opposers.”
“Oh, yes,” replied Mr. Courtney, “I would like to talk to you an hour
about this ‘historical Church,’ and, perhaps, it may come in our way
presently. But I am afraid just now I shall forget your argument, which,
if I understand you rightly, amounts to this: Every man is to go to the
Scriptures to see what the Church is, but when he reads them he is not
to understand them to mean that the Church is what _they say_ it is; but
he must take it for granted that they mean what the ancient historical
Church says it is—what the Fathers say it is—and what the martyrs say it
is. Now, the Fathers and the martyrs were, no doubt, very good people.
They believed for themselves, and have gone to give account for
themselves. You have the same word of faith which they had. You must
believe for yourself, and God will hold you personally accountable for
your faith and your practice. He charges you to found it on HIS WORD,
and not on traditionary legends, or uninspired historical records of
early Churches, Fathers, or martyrs.
“The fact is, sir, we do not know and cannot know with any considerable
degree of certainty, what the fathers and the martyrs did believe and
teach. Their writings have been mutilated and interpolated until they
would now hardly recognize them; and history is often the mere record of
traditions, and traditions are often mere old wives’ fables. I want
something better for my religious faith and practice to rest upon than
the vague and contradictory accounts of the faith of ancient Churches,
Fathers, and martyrs. Then, you say that _I, as an individual, may be
mistaken_, and am, in fact, more likely to be mistaken than all good
Christians of every age. I might grant this, and yet I should feel that
as I am personally responsible, I must personally examine and personally
determine for myself in this as in other things. When I surrender my
right to use my private judgment to determine for myself what the
Scriptures teach, I will go to Rome and procure an infallible priest.
Nothing less would answer my purpose. No other could take the whole
responsibility.
“But I will meet you on your own ground. I will accept our historical
test; for the truth is—and I will prove to you by _your own
historians_—the constitution of the ancient Church and the faith and
practice of the Fathers and the martyrs, in regard to this subject, was,
down to the time of Cyprian, just such as is expressed in this tablet. I
will go still farther. I will show you that it continued, down to the
Reformation, to be the faith and practice of all those Christian
communities which recognized the _Bible_ as their authority, or which
_permitted their people to read the Bible_. Now, if you ask me to
receive the interpretation which any Church or any people give to the
Scriptures, let it, I beseech you, be that Church and those people that
_had_ the Scriptures and _searched_ the Scriptures, and were free to
understand them according to the meaning of the language, and not those
who were forbidden to read them, or to believe any thing different from
their priests, on pain of death.”
“Stop a minute, if you please, Mr. Courtney,” interrupted Doctor
Thinkwell. “Let us make this matter practical as we go along. I want to
see just what bearing it has upon the matter in hand. I asked you to
tell me which was the true Church of Jesus Christ. You proposed rather
to _show_ me than to tell me, and directed me to look for it in the
Book. We have seen it there, as it was organized and established by
Christ and the apostles. We have thus ascertained that it was a local
company of baptized believers, voluntarily associated in accordance with
Christ’s law, to administer his ordinances and execute his laws. For the
sake of convenient reference, we have, as we ascertained from time to
time some distinctive peculiarity of this Church, put it down in our
tablet. We have thus far been guided entirely by the Scriptures. We have
not been at all dependent on history or tradition. Now, if our tablet is
complete, that is, if it has all the distinctive marks, or enough of the
distinctive marks of a true Church to enable us to recognize one when
our attention is directed to it, why should we complicate the issue by
turning aside to explore a question of history? If it can be avoided, I
do not want my faith to hang on any other testimony than the inspired
record. _That_ I can trust. Outside of that I am afraid to go. I do not
care what other people think; I do not ask what they believe. It is
nothing to me: I must decide for myself. I shall use my own judgment,
and be determined by the teaching of the BOOK, as I understand its
language. It seems to me, therefore, that we may, for the present at
least, dispense with any historical testimony on either side of this
question. I do not see why we cannot at once proceed to try the various
claimants, and decide who it is that has the characteristic marks.”
“It will, sir,” replied Mr. Courtney, “be very possible to decide the
matter without any other information but that which we can gather from
the Scriptures on the one hand, and our own personal observation on the
other; but, at the same time, it will be more satisfactory, where we
have undoubted historical testimony bearing upon the case of any
claimant, to bring it before our minds, in order that we may decide in
full view of all the circumstances. Such testimony will, however, come
in by the way, and may be omitted till the occasion calls for it.”
“Then, please let us begin to make some practical application of the
rules we have discovered. I am impatient to make some progress.”
“Whom shall we try first?”
“I should think that the Roman Catholic Church, by virtue of her age,
and the extent of her claims, is entitled to our first consideration. I
suppose there is no one present who regards her as the true Church of
Christ, but I would like to understand precisely the grounds upon which
we are compelled to reject her.”
“I do not much like,” said Mr. Courtney, “to take any course which will
exclude, or even appear to exclude, from our tablet any scriptural test
which may be suggested; and as it is evident from the declaration of our
Saviour to Peter, that ‘the gates of hell should not prevail against his
Church,’ and from the various prophecies which represent his kingdom as
a perpetual and increasing kingdom, that the Church of Christ, as he
established it, must have continued ever the same in all that is
essential to its being, I would gladly add such a historical test as
will enable us to identify among ourselves the Church of the earliest
fathers, and of the holy martyrs, whose testimony seems to be so highly
prized by our friends that they set it above the literal meaning of the
Word itself. It is true, we can recognize the Church without this mark;
and it is also true, that to those whose knowledge of ecclesiastical
history is limited it may be somewhat difficult of application; but it
is not the less valuable to those who have the needful information. The
_test itself_ is simple and scriptural. The Church of Christ began with
Christ. It did not exist before his day. It has existed ever since. Any
organization claiming to be that Church, and yet originating a thousand
years after it was established, cannot surely be what it claims. This is
self-evident. And to _all these who know the origin_ of the claimant,
the argument is quite as valid and convincing as though it were in the
power of the most ignorant to apply it as perfectly as themselves; and
to those who do not know, it may be made available by reference to
_unquestioned_ historical authority. Consequently, though I would be
very unwilling to make it the _only_ test, I cannot but regard it as a
most certain and infallible one. And you will observe that we need not,
in our application of the test, require of any claimant to _prove_ an
origin in the time of Christ. We are willing to take it for granted that
each and all of those organizations which claim to be Christian Churches
did begin with Christ, unless we can show for them a more recent origin.
The history of most or all these claimants has been written by
themselves, and this history gives _their own statement_ of the time and
place and manner of their beginning: now if we show the origin of each
by their own account of themselves, I am sure none of them can
reasonably complain.”
“But do you not see another difficulty in the way of applying this
test?” inquired the Doctor. “We have ascertained that a Church of Christ
is a local and independent organization. Now, the Church that was
organized somewhere last year began more than 1800 years after Christ,
and, consequently, if your rule should be adopted, could not be regarded
as a true Church of Christ.”
“Not at all,” said Mr. Courtney. “We are speaking now of the
_institution_ which Christ ordained and called his Church, and not of
any particular individual _example_ of that institution. If I say the
jury was first established in England a thousand years ago, and has
existed ever since, I do not deny that the jury which was empanelled
yesterday was a real jury. To make it a jury, it is only necessary that
it should be composed of similar materials and organized for the same
purposes with its ancient English prototype. We use the word church in
its generic sense. We are speaking of the executive body in the kingdom
of Christ. That kingdom still exists as he set it up. It has the same
Lord and the same laws. It has also the same ordinances and the same
_executive_. That executive is the Church. The kingdom cannot exist and
be perpetuated without the Church, for it is the Church _only_ that is
authorized to _receive members_ into the kingdom, either by her own act
or that of officers appointed by her. Now, the kingdom has come down, by
a regular succession of subjects, from generation to generation. There
must have been, therefore, a regular succession of Churches to receive
and cherish them. But these Churches must have been all formed upon the
_same Scripture model_, and have been regular successors to each other.
If we find at any time a new organization, with a _new constitution_,
consisting of _different materials_, and governed by _different
regulations_ from the original Church, as established by Christ, then we
can readily understand that it is not his Church, but some new thing
that has come in its place. We do not say that the model Church which
was at Jerusalem, or any other of the Churches which were founded in
apostolic times, has continued to the present time, but only _that there
have always been Churches formed upon the same model_. Those first
Churches were not extinct till others were in being, descended from
themselves, and having the same Lord, the same faith, the same baptism,
the same objects, the same offices, the same character of members, and,
like themselves, executing the laws and observing the ordinances of the
kingdom. So I trust Mrs. Percy may add to her tablet this test, also,
viz.:
“It began in the time of Christ, and has continued to the present time.”
“If you will permit me,” said Mrs. Percy, “to suggest one other mark, I
would say that the Church of Christ can never be a _persecuting_
Church.”
“That is true, madam,” said Mr. Courtney, “and since we have admitted
one historical test, we need not object to receiving another; for, like
the other, it will be very valuable to those who know enough of history
to apply it.”
“But first,” said the Doctor, “let us see whether it has, like the
others, the sanction of the Scriptures. We must not forget that this
_alone_ is our authority.”
“Certainly,” replied Mr Courtney. “The Scriptures teach that it should
be a _persecuted_ Church, but never itself a persecutor. It should
_suffer_ wrong, but not inflict it. If it were persecuted, the
persecutors must be outside itself. The Church of Christ could never
persecute itself. Its law was the law of _love_. The world might hate
it, but it was to bless them that hated it. The world should kill and
destroy it, but it should pray for them that spitefully entreated and
persecuted it. The beast and the false prophet should make war upon it:
the great dragon should seek to destroy it: the woman sitting on the
beast should be drunken with the blood of the saints; and there was a
power which should set itself in the place of God, and should ‘_wear
out_ the saints of the Most High’ with the bitterest and most fearful
persecutions; but the Church of Christ was not to persecute or retaliate
upon her enemies. No New Testament Church was a persecutor, and there is
no intimation that Christ’s people ever should become persecutors. We
may, therefore, very safely say, that whenever we find a claimant to
Church honors upon whose skirts is found the blood of the saints, she is
not a Church of Jesus Christ.”
Theodosia added to her tablet this eighth mark: “It never persecutes for
conscience’ sake.”
“Now,” said Mr. Percy, “let me suggest one other mark, and then I think
our tablet will be complete. It is also so far historical that it will
require some knowledge of history to apply it, but it is most
undoubtedly a scriptural test. It is this: No _apostate_ Church can be a
Church of Jesus Christ.
“Individual members, who have hypocritically professed to take Christ
for their King, may become apostates, and may go out or be cast out; as
the apostle says, ‘They went out from us, because they were not of us.’
Whole societies may by rejecting Christ’s rule, changing his ordinances,
or submitting to other rulers than Christ in matters of religion, place
themselves without his kingdom; but in doing so they surely _cease to be
Churches of Christ_. They may retain the name, but they are no longer
what the name implies. They cannot be in his kingdom and out of it at
the same time. They cannot be subjects of Christ while owning allegiance
and yielding submission in religious things to other masters. Whenever a
Church becomes apostate, and denies the faith or departs from the
practice of the first Churches in any _essential particulars,_ it ceases
at that very moment to be a Church of Christ, and has no longer any
authority as the executive of his kingdom. It is itself a rebel.”
“I do not know so well about that,” said Theodosia. “We find that the
first Churches fell into very serious errors, both of doctrine and of
practice; yet they were not at once disowned.”
“You are both correct,” said Mr. Courtney. “It is not every error in
doctrine, or every departure from the simplicity of the practice of the
first Church, that constitutes apostasy; but there are some doctrines
and some practices which are incompatible with the very nature of the
gospel, and if a Church embraces these it is an apostate, and is no
longer a Church of Christ.
“The Church of Christ is everywhere in the Scripture represented as
faithful and true. She never gives up her allegiance to her Lord. We
read, indeed, that ‘there should be a falling away,’ but it was a
falling away of the parasites who had attached themselves to the
kingdom, and not of the kingdom itself. It was only the man of sin and
the son of perdition, a dead and putrid mass of religious corruption,
that fell off. There is no intimation that ‘the Bride,’ ‘the Lamb’s
wife,’ should forsake her faithfulness and abandon her Beloved. She was
to be _tried_: she was to be persecuted: she was to be driven into the
wilderness, (that is, into obscurity:) she was to be hidden from the
eyes of the world for many a century; but she was always and ever to be
a faithful, loving, and obedient wife. She was never to become the
drunken bawd that sat upon the scarlet-colored beast, nor was she ever,
like the offspring of that bawd, to become a harlot or the associate of
harlots. If any people, therefore, calling themselves by the name of
Christ, have at my time cast aside the peculiar characteristics of his
people, _they are surely no longer to be counted as his people_. A
Church which consists of subjects not designated by him, submits to
rulers not authorized by him, and observes _ordinances_ not commanded by
him, _is not his Church_, whatever it may once have been. Christ has no
_revolted_, no _rebel_ Churches. When any Church rejects him as its sole
King, it is no longer in his kingdom, and all its authority as his
executive is gone. Its baptism is not the baptism of the kingdom, for it
has no longer any right to admit members. Its ministry is not the
ministry of the kingdom, for it is no longer authorized to ordain
ministers. It may propagate its sentiments and perpetuate itself, but it
cannot continue or originate a Church of Christ.”
“One thought more,” said Mr. Percy, “and then I think we are ready to
proceed with the claimants. It is this: Whatever is _now_ an essential
characteristic of a true Church, has _always_ been such since the Church
was established. If for example, the Church of Christ cannot persecute
now, there never was a time when it could persecute; and if an apostate
Church cannot be a Church of Christ now, there never was a time when a
Church that had become apostate could have been authorized to administer
the laws or ordinances of Christ’s kingdom. If it be true that any
Church which should _now_ become _apostate_ would, by that act, utterly
incapacitate herself for the performance of any official act under the
authority of Christ, then it must be equally true that every Church that
ever did at any time become apostate did, at the time of doing so,
become incapable of conferring genuine baptism, or real ordination. In
short, from the moment it ceased to be a true and genuine Church of
Jesus Christ, according to the scriptural characteristics which we have
ascertained, from that very moment all its official acts were null and
void.”
“It strikes me,” said the Bishop, “that your search for the true Church
will now be very much like looking for a cambric needle in a stack of
hay. You have pruned her away on every side until she will be of
necessity so small as to be almost or quite invisible. I confess I begin
to feel a great curiosity to be present at the finding.
“I would like to see that Church which has had a visible and actual
existence from the time of Christ, which has never persecuted, never
temporarily apostatized, and which has _always_ held the fundamental
doctrines of the gospel; consisting in its membership _only_ of those
who have first believed, and then have been baptized, and by their own
personal and voluntary act have become its members. I say, if there be
any Church which embraces _all_ these characteristics, I would like to
see and become acquainted with it. But if I regarded myself as in any
sense a party in this discussion, I should solemnly protest against the
trial of my Church by any such rules.”
“And so should I,” said the Methodist, “for I see no necessity of such
extreme strictness of construction. The people of God are those who love
him and trust him, and wherever they assemble, there is a Church of
God.”
“That, in a _certain sense_, is true,” replied Mr. Courtney; “but every
assembly of those who love God _is not THAT CHURCH to which Christ has
committed the affairs of his visible kingdom_. Every assembly of his
people is not such a Church as that which Christ established, and
requires you, as an obedient subject of his, to unite with and sustain.
_That_ Church is a _peculiar assembly_; and if it has been described in
the Book by such distinctive marks as we have discovered, your protest
is simply a declaration that you are not willing to be tried by the Word
of God. If there is _any one_ of these marks which we have invented
ourselves, and did not find plainly put down in the Book, tell us which
it is, and we will at once blot it out of our tablet. You will surely
admit that there is _some_ way to know a true Church. If you can tell us
of any better way than this, we will adopt it. But until some one can
point out a more certain and reliable course, we must follow this. We
have ‘_searched THE SCRIPTURES to see whether these things are so_;’ and
for myself, I know of no better and no other way to ascertain what the
Church is, than to find it in the Scriptures.”
“I _want_ no other,” said Dr. Thinkwell. “When God has spoken in his
Word, I ask no other test of truth. I take the Bible, and the Bible
alone, for my guide in all matters pertaining to religion. What I cannot
find there I do not care for. What I do find there I trust I shall be
found willing always humbly to receive and joyfully to obey. I
acknowledge that I had no idea that there was so much in the Word
concerning this matter. I had fancied, since I found so many and such
different opinions among professed Christians, that the Scriptures must
have been very indefinite, and have left the whole subject undetermined.
But I find it is not so. These which we have found were certainly
characteristics of the Churches of the apostolic days. I do not know
whether there are any Churches _now_ that have these same
characteristics or not; but if there be _but one_, and that so lowly and
despised that the world does not so much as know it by name, with that
Church I will, if possible, unite, and help, so far as God may give me
strength, to build it up. I can never be contented with any human
substitute for what my Lord himself ordained. Nor do I see why any
people who love Jesus, and desire to obey _his_ laws, should hesitate to
bring their Church organization any more than their faith or their
practice to the Bible, and try it by the simple teachings of
inspiration. And now, Mr. Courtney, if you are not weary, let us bring
some one of the claimants to the Book, and try it. I am anxious to make
some visible progress. We have spent several days merely in arranging
preliminaries. I hope we can now get on more rapidly.”
“I have been so much interested in the preliminaries,” said Theodosia,
“that I had almost forgotten for what purpose we were arranging them.”
“Well, we are now ready for the application, and will first see how the
Church of Rome will look, when we examine her in the light of the Holy
Word. Does she look like the Church of Jesus? Has she the signs and
marks which Christ has put upon the executive of his kingdom?”
“Would it not be better to postpone our examination of this claimant
until to-morrow?” asked Mr. Percy. “We cannot tell how long it may
require, and it is most likely we shall all grow weary before we get
through. There is danger that, in our impatience to reach some tangible
result, we shall hurry over some matters which should not be lightly
passed, or overtask the patience of these friends, who seem to feel an
interest in the subject almost equal to our own.”
“You are right,” said the Doctor. “I am myself weary already with the
long sitting of to-day; but when we meet in the morning, let it be
understood that we are to waste no further time on preliminaries.”
SIXTH DAY’S TRAVEL.
In which the Church of Rome is tried by the Scripture tests, and found
to be no Church of Christ.
WHEN the party had collected the next morning, they entered at once upon
the subject, like people anxious to get through with a long-anticipated
task.
Mr. Courtney commenced the conversation by saying, “Be kind enough to
let us have the tablet, Mrs. Percy, to refresh our memories. This, you
will all remember, is its only use. We have found certain things in the
Scriptures concerning the Church; and when we were sure they were
_there_, we entered them here, merely for the convenience of reference,
and in order to give some system to our application of the Scripture
teachings. Mark this: _We do not try the Churches by our tablet, but by
the SCRIPTURE TESTS, of which our tablet is a mere memorandum_. We
found—
“1st. That the Church of Christ, according to the Scriptures, consists
only of professed believers in Christ, and _not of believers and their
children_. [See pp. 138 to 149.]
“2d. That its members have all been _baptized_ upon profession of their
faith. [See pp. 149 to 156.]
“3d. We found the Church to be a local and independent organization, and
not a great collective ecclesiastical establishment, consisting of many
societies subordinated to each other, or to a common head. [See p. 156
to 157.]
“4th. We found that while it was subject in all things to Christ as its
king and lawgiver, it neither made laws for itself, nor submitted to any
others but those of Christ. [See pp. 158 to 160.]
“5th. We found that its members became such, not by compulsion or
restraint, but freely and voluntarily by their own personal act. [See
pp. 160 to 162.]
“6th. We found that the Scripture Churches held certain peculiar
_doctrines_, which of necessity are contained in the very enunciation of
the gospel. [See p. 162 to 163.]
“These tests we can apply without any other knowledge of the different
claimants than we can gain by our personal observation of the
professions and the practices of each. By these the question, which is
the Church, can be readily settled without any acquaintance with the
_past history_ of the several claimants. But as the Church of Christ was
the subject of prophecy, and we can, in Scripture, see not only the
peculiarities which it _then_ possessed, but those which _it should
exhibit in all coming time_, we availed ourselves of this circumstance,
and looked into the glass of prophecy for some peculiar features, and
must look into that of history to see the correspondence. Thus we found—
“7th. That Christ foretold his Church, which began with him, should be
perpetual; and the true Church, therefore, is one which has not been
destroyed or overcome by Satan and the gates of hell. [See pp. 174 to
176.]
“8th. It appeared evident to us, moreover, that the Church of _Jesus_,
the executive of _his_ laws, could never be a _persecuting_ Church. [See
pp. 176 to 177.]
“And lastly, we found, 9th, that no apostate Church could be the true
Church of Christ, nor have any authority within his kingdom. [See pp.
177 to 179.]
“These marks belong to every true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. That
claimant which cannot show them we must reject. We need not care what
she may be called. We need not ask how numerous or how intelligent or
how _pious_ her membership may be, for it is not numbers or intelligence
or piety that constitutes a Church. To be a Church _of Christ_, it must
consist of such people as _=he= has designated_—that is of baptized
believers. It must be _organized_ according to _his_ instructions, and
in conformity to the models which =he= furnished in the Scriptures, and
in doctrine and practice as an official body it must be conformed to
=his= laws. Now, if even a very numerous body of very intelligent and
very pious people have associated themselves together as Christians, and
yet _not in accordance_ with the Master’s instructions concerning his
Church, they cannot be regarded as his Church. Theirs _is not_ the
institution to which Christ, as King, intrusted the executive authority
of his kingdom; and if they attempt to exercise it, they are (though it
may be unconsciously, yet no less truly) usurpers and rebels. They may
be the friends of the King. They may, in their hearts, wish well to the
kingdom. They may earnestly strive to promote the invisible extension of
the kingdom in the hearts of men. They may believe on Christ to the
salvation of their own souls, and be the means of bringing thousands of
others to believe and to be saved; but THOSE ORGANIZATIONS _into which
they are incorporated_ are no more _the Churches of Christ_ than if they
were not called by that name. To be _his Churches_, they must not only
consist of _his people_, but be organized upon _his_ constitution, and
governed in _their official_ acts by _his_ rules.”
“Certainly,” exclaimed the Doctor, “we all understand that. We have
collected out of the Scriptures the _scriptural_ marks or characteristic
peculiarities of a _scriptural_ Church, and all that now remains for us
to do is to apply them fairly and honestly, without fear or favor, to
the several claimants which ask to be recognized and treated as the
Churches of Jesus. If any one will not be tried by these scriptural
tests we may, it seems to me, regard _that fact_ as in itself a
sufficient reason to reject its claims, since it is evident that no
Church of Christ could be unwilling to bring herself up to the
requirements of her Lord, as laid down in his Word. And now _please_ do
not let us spend any more time on the preliminaries, but go at once into
our work.”
“Let me,” said the Bishop, “suggest—not for the purpose of embarrassing
your inquiries, (you have made your path sufficiently narrow already,)
but merely to show that you are not yet quite ready—that you have in
your tablet taken no notice of the _officers_ or _ministers_ of the
Church. You have not inquired whether there are in the true Church one
order, or two orders, or three orders of the ministry.”
“Nor,” replied Mr. Courtney, “have we any need to do so now, since this
subject will necessarily come up when we come to apply our _fourth
test_; for if Christ did not appoint prelatical bishops, then the Church
that _submits herself_ to the _rule_ of such bishops has gone out from
the fold of the gospel order, and submitted to the authority of other
lords than Christ. By doing so she ceased to be a Church of Christ, and
became the Church of the bishops: so, as _episcopos_ signifies a bishop,
your Church is rightly named the ‘_Episcopal_,’ that is, the _bishops’_
Church.
“I will merely say, however, at this time, that the Church at Jerusalem
was a Church competent to receive members and administer the ordinances
before she had any _deacons_; and we read in Acts xiv. 23, of Churches
which seem to have existed without any _elders_ or presbyters, from
which I infer that a Church may _exist_ without any officers until it
can _choose_ its deacons and its pastor, and have them properly
ordained. It is not complete, but still _it is a Church_, and has within
itself the authority to perfect its organization by the _election_ from
its own members of a pastor to minister in the Word, and deacons to
minister in its temporal affairs. But we will have occasion to look at
this again as we progress with our investigations. And we are now ready,
Doctor, to go on as you requested, and apply our tests to the boldest
and most arrogant of all the claimants to Church honors. How is it with
the Church of Rome? Does she consist only of believers?
“Certainly not. Her members are almost all made members in their
_infancy_, without personal faith or any pretence that it exists. And,
unlike the American Presbyterians and Methodists, Rome does not in
practice repudiate her theory, and virtually disown her members till
they give evidence of conversion, or at least of a desire to escape from
hell. She counts them as having been made Christians in fact, as they
were in form, by the ceremonial mummery of their baby baptism. In that,
they say, they were regenerated and made members of Christ, and of his
Church, before any act of personal faith in Christ was possible. Even,
therefore, though we should concede that all her adult members are real
believers in Christ, yet she embraces in her membership thousands and
thousands who, so for from being qualified to act their part in the
transaction of the business of Christ’s kingdom, do not so much as know
their right hand from their left. Apply your second test. Have her
members all been baptized?”
“Our answer to that question,” replied the Doctor, “must depend upon our
decision of another, and that is, _What is baptism_? If sprinkling a
little babe is baptism, then they have been baptized: if only the
immersion of a believer is baptism, then they have not been baptized.
You will remember that I doubted the propriety of introducing this test,
(if it could have been avoided,) on the ground that it would, subject us
to the necessity of going over the whole field of the baptismal
controversy.”
“We need do nothing of the kind, sir,” replied Mr. Courtney. “The Roman
Catholic Church has never _pretended_ that sprinkling was valid baptism,
only so far as it was made such _by the Pope_, or by ‘_the Church_.’
That it was immersion which Christ commanded, which the first Churches
practiced, and which was everywhere and always practiced (except in
supposed cases of necessity) for over thirteen hundred years, no Roman
Catholic will pretend to deny. It remained for Protestants, for men
professing a purer Christianity, and a more sacred regard to the
authority of the Scriptures and the truth of history; it remained for
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists, to distort and falsify
history, and pervert and mystify the Scriptures, in order to obtain at
least some shadow of support for the sprinkling ceremony which they have
substituted for the baptism of the New Testament. The Roman Church felt
no necessity for such a course. She asked no _Scripture_ sanction. The
decree of a council or the bull of a pope is all the authority which she
requires. It is on _such_ authority, and _only_ on such, that she has
openly and _avowedly_ substituted sprinkling for immersion. She makes no
secret of the business; she openly and boldly declares, in the face of
God and man, that she _has changed_ the rite; that though Christ
commanded and the first Churches practiced _immersion_, yet she had the
right to _change_ laws and ordinances, and she has changed _this_ to
sprinkling or pouring. She will tell you _when_ she changed it, and give
you the reasons _why_ she changed it; and she habitually and justly
taunts the sprinkling Protestants with having adopted _her_ rite,
instead of the baptism of Christ and the Scriptures, while they pretend
to disown her authority and submit only to that of the written Word.
“The only question for us to decide is, therefore, whether the popes and
councils of the Church of Rome had any right to abolish the ordinance of
Christ, and in its place to substitute another, bearing the same name
indeed, but altogether different from it in form and in fact?”
“There can surely be no hesitation about the proper decision of _that_
point,” replied the Doctor. “But are you sure that the facts are as you
have stated?”
“If I had not been, I should not have stated them. But I do not ask you
to receive them on my authority. I will point you to the means of
verifying, to the satisfaction of the most incredulous, the fact as I
have stated it.[6]
“1. I might refer you to the statements of ecclesiastical history. What
says Neander? What says Mosheim? What says Schaff? What say the
Magdeburg Centuriators? What says every learned and candid historian,
whether he be himself an immersionist or sprinkler, who has carefully
investigated the subject?
“No one can carefully read what they have collected on this point, and
not be ready to say, with that eminent Pedobaptist, Professor Stuart,
‘It is a thing made out, namely the ancient practice of immersion. So,
indeed, all the writers who have thoroughly investigated the subject
conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient times which seems to be more
clearly made out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man who
examines the subject to deny this.’
“2. I might refer you to those massive monuments of the ancient
practice, the baptisteries, with their immense artificial pools deep
enough to swim in; and I ask for what purpose they could have been
constructed, at so much cost and labor, if baptism had not been
immersion.
“3. I might refer you to the otherwise inexplicable fact that in the
Roman Catholic Church, for many ages, adults and children, male or
female, were always divested of their clothing when about to be
baptized. ‘Revolting as this custom was,’ says Stuart, ‘yet it is as
certain as testimony can make it.’
“But I need not try to prove what the party concerned has never
pretended to deny, namely, that immersion was the original baptism, and
that it was so recognized and practiced by the Church of Rome, and that,
by the authority of the popes and councils, it has been changed to
pouring and sprinkling.
“That very learned Roman Catholic, Doctor F. Brennan, in his work on the
history of baptism, says, expressly, that such has been the case. Dr.
Chase gives the following translation, of the first paragraph of what
Brennan presents as a
‘Synoptical View of Ancient Times and Modern in Respect To Baptism,
[Among Those Who Acknowledge the Papal Authority.]’
‘FORMERLY. | ‘AT PRESENT.
------------------------------------+--------------------------------
‘Thirteen hundred years baptism was | ‘Now baptism is generally and
generally and ordinarily an | ordinarily a pouring of the
immersion of the person under | person with water; and only in
water; and only in extraordinary | the Church of Milan immersion
cases a sprinkling or pouring with | still continues, as something
water; the latter as a mode of | peculiar to this Church alone,
baptism was, moreover, called in | and extraordinary; elsewhere it
question; ay, even forbidden.’ | would be punishable.’
“Bossuet, the famous Roman Catholic Bishop of Meaux, says: ‘We read not
in Scripture that baptism was otherwise administered, [than by
immersion,] and we are able to make it appear, by the _acts of councils
and by the ancient rituals, that for THIRTEEN HUNDRED YEARS baptism was
thus administered throughout the whole Church as far as possible_.’
Again, speaking of the fact that baptism is immersion, and was thus
given by Christ and practiced by the apostles: ‘Though these are
incontestable truths, yet neither we, [Roman Catholics,] nor those of
the pretended reformed religion, hearken to the Anabaptists, who hold
immersion to be essential and indispensable; nor have either they or we
feared _to change_ this dipping, as I may of the whole body, into a bare
aspersion or infusion on one part of it.’ In another work, in which he
is defending the Roman Catholic usage of denying the cup to the laity in
communion, he makes the following argument: ‘Baptism by immersion, which
is as clearly established in the Scriptures as communion under two kinds
can possibly be, has, nevertheless, _been changed into pouring_ with as
much ease and as little dispute as communion under one kind has been
established; for there is the same reason why one should be preserved as
the other. It is a fact most firmly believed by the reformed, (though
some of them at this time wrangle about it) that baptism was instituted
to be administered by plunging the body entirely in; that Jesus Christ
received it in this manner, and it was thus performed by his apostles;
that the Scriptures are acquainted with no other baptism; that antiquity
understood and practiced it in this manner; and that to baptize is to
plunge: these facts, I say, are unanimously acknowledged by all the
reformed [Protestant] teachers, by the reformers [Protestants]
themselves; by those who best understood the Greek language and the
ancient customs of both Jews and Christians; by Luther, by Melancthon,
by Calvin, by Casaubon, by Grotius, with all the rest, and, since their
time, by Jurieu, the most ready to contradict of all their ministers.
Luther has even remarked that this sacrament is called _Tauf_ in German,
on account of the depth; because they plunged deeply in the water those
whom they baptized. If, then, there is in the world a fact absolutely
certain, _it is this_. Yet it is no less certain that with all these
authors baptism without immersion is considered lawful, and that the
Church properly retains the custom of pouring; and _the Church_, in
supporting these two customs which tradition proves are equally
indifferent, has not done any thing unusual, but maintained against
troublesome persons that authority upon which the faith of the ignorant
rests.’
“In perfect accordance with these are many other Roman Catholic writers
and teachers. They all admit and are ready to prove (if necessity
require) that Scripture baptism was immersion, and was so received and
practiced; but as the _external_ act was not of the essence of the
sacrament, the Church had the right, and has employed it, to _change_
the rite, and substitute the aspersion of a part of the body for the
immersion of the whole.
“If, in the face of these open concessions of their own most eminent
men, a single doubt remains that the Roman Church has changed Christ’s
rite and put another in its place, that lingering doubt will be removed
by the simple fact that all the industrious research of the learned Dr.
Wall could find no instance of any pretended baptism by sprinkling or
pouring among the early Christians, except in cases of supposed
_necessity_ from dangerous sickness; and no country, which had not been
under the dominion of the Pope, in which this substitution had been
made. ‘All those countries,’ he says, ‘in which the usurped power of the
Pope is or has formerly been owned, have left off dipping of the
children in the fonts, but all other countries in the world, which had
never regarded his authority, do still use it.’
“If any shadow of a doubt should still remain, it must surely be
dispelled by the account which Catholics themselves have given of the
time and manner, when and how, the _change_ was made.
“Mr Robinson has gathered from their Latin documents the following
facts:
“‘In the year seven hundred and fifty-three, Astulphus, King of the
Lombards, oppressed the city of Rome. Pope Stephen the III fled into
France to implore the assistance of Pepin, who had been lately elected
king. He, whom many considered as a usurper, availed himself of this
event, and with the address of a great politician turned it to his own
advantage. He examined with profound reverence _a letter which Saint
Peter had written and sent him from heaven_ by the hands of Stephen to
persuade him to assist the Church. He promised instantly to execute the
celestial commission, and he fulfilled his promise by freeing Italy from
the Lombards, by replacing Stephen, and richly endowing the Church.
Stephen was not ungrateful to his benefactor. He sanctified his title to
the crown by giving the royal unction to Pepin in the Church of St.
Denis, made him the first anointed sovereign in Europe, and denounced an
anathema on the French if they should ever bestow their crown on any
other family than that of Pepin. Stephen resided in France all winter,
and had a severe fit of sickness, occasioned by the fatigue of
journeying and the perplexity of his affairs, from which, however, he
soon recovered.
“‘During his residence in the monastery of St. Denis, he introduced the
Roman ritual. In the spring of the next year, seven hundred and
sixty-four, in answer to some monks of Cressy, who privately consulted
him, he gave his opinion on nineteen questions, one of which is allowed
_to be the first authentic law for administering baptism by pouring_,
and which in time was interpreted to signify sprinkling. The question
proposed was, whether, _in case of necessity_, occasioned by the illness
of an infant, it were lawful to baptize by pouring water out of the hand
or a cup on the head of the infant? Stephen answered: If such a baptism
were performed in such a case _of necessity_ in the name of the Holy
Trinity, it should be held valid.’
“The learned James Basnage (a Roman Catholic antiquary) makes several
very proper remarks upon this canon, as, that ‘Although it is accounted
the first law for sprinkling, yet it doth not forbid dipping; that it
allows sprinkling only in case of imminent danger; that the authenticity
of it is denied by same Catholics; that many laws were made after this
time in Germany, France, and England, to compel dipping, and without any
provision for cases of necessity; therefore, that this law did not alter
the mode of dipping in public baptisms, and that it was not till five
hundred and fifty-seven years after, that the legislature in a council
at Ravenna, in the year thirteen hundred and eleven, declared dipping or
sprinkling indifferent.’
“It is not denied that pouring and sprinkling had in case of necessity
been employed before this, but it was done without _legal authority_,
and it was ever doubtful whether it were valid baptism. It was, however,
legalized in _cases of necessity_ by Pope Stephen the III, and in all
cases by the popish council at Ravenna.”
“I do not think,” said the Doctor, “that we need spend any more time on
this point. If any thing can be made certain by testimony, it seems to
be certain that this Church once baptized by immersion, and now do it by
pouring or sprinkling. If the _first was_ the baptism commanded by
Christ, they have abolished it, and substituted another act; and so are
now no Church. If the first was _not_ the baptism commanded by Christ,
then they were forages without baptism, and were, consequently, no
Church.”
“But,” said Theodosia, “they were no Church even though their _act_ of
baptism had been the scriptural act. They would have been no Church,
according to our test, though they had been immersed, unless it had been
done upon a personal profession of their faith. We found in our
examination of the Scriptures not only that all were _baptized_ before
they were counted as members of Christ’s Church, but they were _not
baptized until after they had made profession of their penitence and
faith_. So far, therefore, as these or any other people have been
baptized before they believed, they are not scriptural Church members.
The _immersion_ of an unconscious babe is no more gospel baptism than
the _sprinkling_ of such a babe.”
“Perhaps you are right,” said the Doctor; “I will think of that
hereafter. Let us now go on to our third test.
“Is the Roman Catholic Church a local and independent society of
baptized believers, or is it a great establishment embracing many local
societies? To ask the question is to answer it. Everybody who knows any
thing of this hierarchy is familiar with the fact that each of all its
thousands of local congregations is but a part of the great combination
called the Roman Catholic Church, the central power of which is in the
city whose name it bears, or rather in the Pope, wherever he may be; and
it is very certain that we found no prototype of any such a Church in
the New Testament. The Church of which we saw so many examples there was
in every instance independent of all other Churches. It was never itself
subjected to any other Church, or to all the other Churches; nor did it
in any single instance demand or receive subjection from all others, or
from any other, to itself. And even though we should admit the existence
of a scriptural universal Church, that Church must be made up of
scriptural Churches. If the single Churches were independent local
bodies, the great collective Church must be made up of just such
independent bodies. The whole could not consist of different materials
from the parts of which it was composed. No great confederation of
so-called Churches can be, therefore, in this general sense, the Church
of Christ, unless each member of that confederation be itself a Church
complete within itself, and as a Church entirely independent of the
confederation of which it may be supposed to make a part. Even though we
should conceive of something the parts of which are Churches, and the
whole combined the Church, and call this conception the visible Church
universal, it could embrace within its limits no ecclesiastical
establishment consisting of local societies subordinate to some national
central power, or even subordinate to each other. If the visible Church
of Christ considered as a local organization is complete and independent
within itself, then his visible Church considered collectively must be
composed _only_ of such local and independent societies. The whole can
embrace no more than all its parts. But let us go on to apply our fourth
test. Has the Roman Church any lawgiver but Christ? Does she recognize
any authority but his above her own?”
“Surely not,” exclaimed Mr. Percy, “if by the Church you mean the whole
establishment, including the popes and cardinals; bishops and priests!
The Church of Rome admits to power above herself, and does not hesitate
to abrogate and change even the laws of Christ. But if you mean to ask
whether any one of those local congregations which are called Roman
Catholic Churches recognizes any authority but Christ’s above its own,
that is another question.”
“Our friend the Doctor,” replied Mr. Courtney, “is looking for the
visible Church of Christ. He desires to join it. He can only unite with
it as a local assembly. In fact, we have already settled that the Church
of Christ _is_ a local assembly, and nothing more. The question,
therefore, which we have to decide is, whether any of the so-called
_local Churches_ which may come before our observation are Churches of
Jesus Christ; and if we find any such Church, which _as a Church_
recognizes the authority of any power but Christ’s outside itself to
make laws for it, or to exercise discipline for it, or over it, that
Church is not a Church of Christ. It has rejected Christ as its sole
King, and submitted itself to other lords. It is not _Christ’s_
executive, but, so far as it exercises any authority, it carries into
effect the laws of _some other_; or, what is worse, it abandons the
exercise of all authority, and tamely _submits_ to the government of
fallible men. So far from being herself the administrator of the laws of
Christ, exercising under him the supreme authority of his kingdom a
regard to its own membership; so far from deciding for herself,
according to Christ’s law, whom she will admit and whom she must
exclude, whom she will have to minister in holy things, and by what
means she can best enforce her Lord’s requirements, she leaves all this
to a minister, a priest, a bishop, a pope, a council, a conference, a
presbytery, or some other controlling power, which she, _as a Church_,
recognizes as having authority to determine for her, and to which she
_as a Church_ is under obligations to submit. Now, the local Roman
Catholic society is subject to the priest; it is subject to the bishops;
it is subject to the councils; it is subject to the Pope; and if it
should have the unheard-of temerity to appeal to the Scriptures,
determine their meaning for herself, and, in obedience to what she
thought to be the law of Christ, reject the authority of these human
rulers and lawgivers, she would be at once disowned and cast out. She
would be no longer a Roman Catholic Church.
“She is not as a Roman Catholic Church free to examine and decide for
herself what are the requirements of Jesus, as the King in Zion, and
carry them into effect: but she must believe and do what is required by
the Pope. As a Church she has no power to say who shall be her members,
who shall be admitted to or who excluded from her communion. As a Church
she cannot choose her ministers, nor refuse the most abject submission
to such as it shall please her human masters to place over her. The
popes and councils make laws for her, and the bishops exercise
discipline for her. She is a slave, whose only duty is to obey
unquestioningly every command, not of Christ, but of men who have taken
it upon themselves to lord it over God’s heritage.
“But new, if you look at the Roman Catholic Church as a great collective
body, and inquire if this hierarchy has Christ alone for its Lawgiver
and King, the answer must be no. She makes laws for herself. The decrees
of her councils are of equal authority with the commands of Jesus. She
is not the simple executor of the laws of Christ, but she has taken upon
herself to change his laws and his ordinances, _refusing_ to obey him,
and requiring obedience to her own enactments. The Pope is to her the
king and lawgiver, and what the _Christ_ has commanded, her members are
not even permitted to inquire for themselves.
“If now we apply our fifth test, and ask if her members have become such
by their own voluntary act, the answer must be no. With very few
exceptions, they were made such without their own knowledge or consent.
They were made members by the acts of others before they were capable of
understanding any thing about the matter.
“If you should take a pen, put it in the hand of a babe, and take hold
of his fingers and guide his tiny hand in such a way that it should
write its signature to a deed of gift conveying to the Church his whole
inheritance, that act would be as much the act of the child, as is the
act by which he is made to give _himself_ to the Church. It is no act of
his. He is made a member not only without his desire, but without his
consciousness. The members of the Scripture Churches were not made thus.
They heard the Word: they were pricked in their hearts: they believed in
Christ: they rejoiced in hope; and then they of their own accord
consorted with the people of God. This is, therefore, no Church, because
its members were not made such by their own desire, or even with their
own consent.
“Does it, in accordance with our sixth test, hold the fundamental
doctrines of the gospel? Is salvation, in her formulas made to depend on
grace, through faith, or is it made to rest on _works_: on the
observance of _forms_ and conformity to the _ceremonies_ prescribed by
the Church? No one familiar with her ritual can doubt. The child is
_made a Christian_ by its baptism; and as it grows up must complete the
work of salvation by confessions and penances, genuflections and
fastings, and the like. Here is no recognition of the sacrifice of
Christ _once_ offered for the sins of the world, and vow available to
every one who believes. Salvation is only to be found _in the Church_,
and only to be received at the hands of the _priests_, and that by the
use of certain forms. We need not take time to show her errors in
detail. We need not speak of the adoration of images and supplications
to saints. It is enough for us to know that she has so for changed the
gospel plan of saving sinners that she cannot give the same directions
to the convicted and anxious inquirer after salvation which the apostles
did, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.’
“Seventh. Did it begin in the time of Christ, and has it continued to
the present time? There is no doubt that in the time of the apostles a
Church of Christ was founded at Rome. There is no doubt that it
continued for a time to be a _true_ Church. At first it was composed
only of baptized believers, who had ‘been buried with Christ by
baptism,’ and whose ‘faith was spoken of throughout the world.’ It was
at first and for several generations a simple local assembly, which
claimed no authority over other Churches, and submitted itself to no
authority but that of Christ. It took the law of Jesus for its guide and
in all questions of doctrine or of duty appealed to at alone. So long as
this continued, it was a Church of Christ. Had it continued thus until
the present, we should rejoice to recognize it now as a true Church of
Christ, which had existed from the earliest days But she did not
continue thus. At an early day she began to recognize the authority of
rulers whom Christ had not appointed; she submitted to laws which Christ
had not enacted; she introduced members whom Christ had not authorized;
and from that time she ceased to be a Church of Christ. She was still
called by his name, but she was no longer his; she had become apostate,
and, by doing so, had lost all right to act as his executive. She became
the seat of sin, the very throne of Satan. She shed the blood of the
saints by thousands upon thousands. She changed the ordinances of
Christ, and showed herself to be the very ‘Antichrist,’ the ‘man of sin’
and ‘son of perdition,’ foretold in the Word. So long as she retained
her first estate, she was a Church of Christ; when she entered the
second, she was the Church of Rome, and in the course of time she styled
herself the Roman Catholic or _universal_ Church. The exact date of her
transformation from a Church of Christ to Antichrist is not now easy to
determine; but she was certainly no Church of Christ from that day when
she first imbued her impious hands in the blood of those whom she slew
for the testimony of Jesus. In her present form as a religious
_hierarchy_, and with her present constitution and character of
membership and order of ministry, she dates her beginning long after the
time of Christ. In his day, or that of the apostles, no such religious
establishments were dreamed of. The Church of Christ, as we have seen,
was not a hierarchy, and of course no hierarchy _could_ be his Church.
And so even if this immense establishment had existed from before the
death of Christ, it could have been no Church of his, for his Church was
_not_ such an establishment, but a simple local, independent society. We
know, however, from undoubted historical records, that it was at least
as late as the second century before the Church of Christ at Rome gave
place to the Roman hierarchy; so that she has not even this claim to be
a true scriptural Church.
“Then, if we apply our eighth test, and ask if she has ever persecuted
for conscience’ sake, all history will testify that she was for ages
drunken with the blood of the saints. When was there a day that she did
not persecute? In every age, and every country, where she has had the
power, she has tortured, and tormented, and destroyed all who ventured
to obey Christ rather than Rome. It is somewhat remarkable that, though
she has sometimes killed Jews and Pagans for their religion, her chief
cruelties have been inflicted on those who claimed to be the followers
of Jesus: who studied God’s holy Word for themselves, and who would not
recognize her authority above that of their Lord. They said that a
corrupt apostate Church had lost all authority as the executive of the
kingdom of Christ, and therefore that baptism conferred by her
ministers, and on her authority, was no Christian baptism and they could
not receive it as such. They consequently baptized those who came to
them from the Roman Church even though they had been immersed by the
priests. This Rome declared was the horrible sin of rebaptizing, or
Anabaptism, and those who practiced it were called by them the
Anabaptists. It is remarkable also that these Anabaptists could not find
any authority in the Word for the baptism of children. They said Christ
did not command it, for no such command can be discovered in the Book.
They said Christ did not practice it; no more did the apostles; for no
instance of its performance can be discovered in the Book. And since
there was no _Scripture_ for it, they could not practice it as a
religious ordinance. They consequently, while they dedicated their
children to God, and carefully educated them in a knowledge of his Word,
yet did not dare to mock God by conferring on them the baptism which
Christ had appointed only for those who had repented and believed. For
these things they were anathematized. For these things they were fined
imprisoned, scourged, tortured, beheaded, drowned, and burned by the
‘_Holy Catholic Church_’ of Rome. For these things they are to-day
fined, and imprisoned, and tormented, in every Catholic country where
the Church _has the power_, and dares to use it. It is mainly by the
curses which were denounced against them, by the instructions given for
their extirpation, and the reasons given why they must be destroyed from
the earth, that we can trace the history of the true Churches, from the
time that the Roman hierarchy was established. The history of _that
hierarchy_ is minutely recorded, and _that_ is called the history of the
Church! But the true Churches of Christ have scarce a name for many
ages. We might have been left to doubt of their existence, did not these
decrees, which denounced them as the most fearful of heretics, and the
record of the bloody executions by which these decrees were so
remorsefully enforced, attest their continuous existence. But, as it is,
we can recognize them in every age, and many lands. We can trace them by
the streams of blood which they shed for the testimony of Jesus; and see
them by the light of the fires by which their bodies were consumed,
because they would not forsake their King, give up the liberty with
which Christ had made them free, and subject their conscience to the
rule of Rome. They boldly asked, ‘What has the emperor to do with our
religion?’ They knew, in matters of religion, no other king but Jesus.
They were governed by _his Word_; and this was their unpardonable crime.
They would not obey the Pope: they would not heed the decrees of
councils: they had the Word of God; that they could not disobey; its
authority was supreme, and its instructions were complete. What need had
they of popes and councils to teach them the law of Christ? And what
right had popes and councils to change or abrogate the laws of Christ?
They were Christ’s freemen, and would not, nay they could not, bow their
necks to the yoke of Roman Catholic bondage, or bow their knee to Roman
Catholic authority. And Roman Catholic authority, after ‘the Church’ had
secured the alliance and control of the civil power to enforce her
decrees, was not lightly to be cast off. Not the blood of individual
offenders alone could satiate her vengeance; though countless thousands
perished thus alone in the dungeons of the Inquisition, and in the
flames of the ‘_auto da fé_;’ but whole provinces were laid waste by
fire and sword, and all the population, men and women, innocent maidens
and little, helpless infants, consigned to indiscriminate and murderous
death—death made most terrible by all the atrocities which the most
diabolical cruelty and most satanic ingenuity could possibly devise, to
add to its horrors. The Church of Rome can count her victims, not by
thousands nor by hundreds of thousands, but by millions; and these not
Jews, rejecting Christ; not Pagans, bowing down to dumb idols; but
believers in Jesus—baptized believers, meaning, like the early
Christians, in their local churches, and organized upon the Scripture
model; whose only crime was that they chose to obey Christ rather than
the Pope. They would not acknowledge that Rome had any right to rule
where Christ alone was King. They would not acknowledge the baptism of
Rome, and would not baptize their children till they gave evidence of
penitence and faith.”
“If it will not give you too much trouble,” said Theodosia, “I would
like to hear some of the particulars of the Catholic persecutions. I
know they are many; and some of them have been very destructive and
cruel; but I have in my mind rather a general conception of nameless
horrors, than any of the details of cruelty and death which you have
referred to in such general terms.”
“I fear,” said Doctor Thinkwell, “that if we enter upon the particular
acts of persecuting cruelty on the part of this Church, it will consume
too much of our time. I have given some little attention to this matter,
and can assure you that the history of her persecutions is, in a great
degree, the history of the hierarchy. She has been not an occasional but
a continuous persecutor. Still, if Mr. Courtney can select a few of the
most striking or most instructive examples, it will, perhaps, not be
amiss.”
“An examination of these facts,” said Mr. Courtney, “so far from causing
a needless waste of time, or directing our attention from the main
object which we have in hand, will be almost essential to our perfect
understanding, not only of the position of this claimant, but of several
of the others. And though we cannot enter into all the horrible details
of the persecutions which God’s people have sustained from this
ecclesiastical hierarchy and her descendants, we cannot do less than
briefly to trace her history in connection with this point.”
“Please give it to us, then, as briefly as you can,” said the Doctor.
“No, no, Mr. Courtney!” exclaimed Theodosia. “Please tell us all you
know about it. Dr. Thinkwell has been over all this ground, and does not
remember that to the rest of us it will be entirely new, and will have
all the interest of romance.”
“The history of persecution is a strange history, in any light in which
we are able to view it; and the strangest chapter in that history is
that which relates to the persecution of Christians by those who
professed to be themselves the friends and followers of Jesus. It was
not wonderful that Pagans should kill Christians, and seek to arrest the
progress of a religion which so bitterly denounced their opinions and
their practices, and was so utterly and irreconcilably opposed to all
that they held sacred. Christianity, wherever it was received, abrogated
and destroyed the power of the Pagan priests. The reverence with which
they had been greeted was changed to pity or contempt. The costly
offerings no longer came to enrich their shrines; no victims bled before
their altars. The pomp and grandeur of their imposing ceremonies was
gone. Their temples were crumbling to ruin; and all the splendor and
pageantry of their once attractive ritual no longer attracted countless
thousands to gaze, and wonder, and adore. These priests were the
educated, the intelligent, the governing minds of vast and powerful
nations. They would not see their power sliding from out their grasp,
and make no effort to retain it. Instinctively they clung to it with the
tenacity of the death-struggle. The intensest efforts of the mightiest
minds of all the Pagan world were exerted in defence of the ancient
religion. Nor does it seem too much to believe that they were aided in
their counsels by suggestions from that Prince of darkness whose willing
servants they had been so long. As Rome was now the mistress of the
world, it was in Rome that the great battle must be fought. When Paul
began to preach there, in his own hired house, bound by a chain to the
soldier who had his liberty in charge, Christianity was too small a
thing to excite more than contemptuous disregard on the part of those in
power. But when converts had multiplied, and some of them were found
even in the household of the emperor, the priests became alarmed. They
did not choose to reason, but determined to destroy. The government
belonged to them, and all the ingenuity of statutes, all the powers of
arms, and all the authority of the empire, were employed at once to
crush the new religion to the earth, and grind out every vestige of it
from the minds of men. If it had been like other religions, such would
have been the speedy and certain result. But the name of Christ was
stronger than the terrible name of Rome. Ten fearful persecutions, in
which all the vast power and resources of the mightiest empire of the
earth were brought to bear with most malignant and terrific energy upon
the rising sect, had passed, and yet it was not extinguished. The cruel
Nero, the proud and perfidious Domitian, the superstitious Diocletian,
in vain assailed it. The bodies of Christians were slaughtered in the
streets; thrown alive into the arena of the amphitheatre, to be devoured
by wild beasts; burned as torches to illuminate the public gardens; and
subjected to tortures too horrible to mention. But Christianity still
survived. Celsus, Porphyry, and Hierocles, attacked it by argument, by
abuse, by satire, and denunciation; but it was still triumphant. ‘The
Apologies’ of the Fathers were more than a match for the learning and
wit of their opponents. Even Julian the Apostate, when he brought all
the learning and all the skill of his philosophy, combined with all the
power of the empire, to bear upon the religion which he had once
embraced, and then disowned, was compelled to own in death that the
Galilean had conquered—Christianity was triumphant. The temples of the
idols became the churches of the worshippers of Jesus. The altars no
longer smoked with the blood of sacrifices offered to love. And yet the
_priests_ were there, clothed, like their pagan predecessors, in their
sacred robes, and much of what was called the worship of Jehovah was
wonderfully like what had once been called the worship of Jupiter. The
Christian name was there, but the purity and the power of the religion
of Christ had been lost; and those who were now called Christians, so
soon as they were invested with _the power_, showed that they were quite
as ready to torture and torment, to persecute and destroy, those who
ventured to call in question _their_ authority, as the ancient Pagans
had ever been.”
“Please tell us, Mr. Courtney, how this change was brought about. How
was it that the disciples of Him who was another name for love, and who
bade his followers to do good to them who hated them, and pray for those
who persecuted them—how was it that they ceased to obey their Lord, and
became themselves the murderers of their brethren?”
“When the religion of Christ,” replied Mr. Courtney, “became the
_popular_ religion; when those who professed it were courted and
flattered rather than imprisoned and killed; when nobles and emperors
had espoused the cause of Christ, bad men united with that party for the
sake of power and influence. When infant baptism (or, rather, the
baptism of minors, for the baptism of _babes_ was not introduced till a
later day;) had been adopted, and the only prerequisite for
Church-membership was the ability to repeat, like a parrot, the words of
a creed, and answer some questions of a catechism; when sincere
repentance and a living faith in Christ had been dispensed with as terms
of admission to the Churches, they soon came to be composed of
unconverted men, who had no spiritual understanding of the gospel, and
to whom religion was but an empty form, valuable only so far as it could
be used or purposes of worldly aggrandizement. These Churches were no
longer the assemblies of the disciples of Jesus. They had already ceased
to be true Churches of Christ; they were mere companies of _worldly
men_, who had no love for Jesus or his cause, and cared far less for the
prosperity of _his_ kingdom than for their own promotion. The first step
towards that fearful change by which Christ’s Church was driven out of
sight, and an establishment having the same name, though consisting of a
different sort of people, and organized under a very different
constitution, and filled with rancorous hatred towards it, was the _loss
of the independence of the local societies_. Christ, as we have seen,
made each Church independent. It had none above it but himself alone. He
was its Lord and Master; but it called no one master on the earth.
“But it happened very early (some time in the second century) that this
wise arrangement began to be changed. In the large _cities_ the first
Church that was organized began to take precedence of the others, which
were formed, to some extent, under its superintendence. The process was
very simple and very natural. There was a large and influential Church:
it had in it a number of ministers, who were all called presbyters—that
is, elders or bishops. Some one of these it chose to be its pastor. As
the membership increased, it would become inconvenient for all to meet
in the same place. They would consequently assemble for worship in
different localities in the city; and it was but natural that they
should request _him_ whom they all recognized as their _pastor_, and to
whose Church they came to partake of the holy supper, and at whose hands
they had received their baptism, to send them some elder to conduct
their public worship. It was but natural that he should request some
minister to go, and that he should even desire him to take the permanent
charge, with the consent of all concerned, of this little interest. It
was but natural that what was thus done as a matter of convenience and
courtesy, should soon come to be regarded (among people so ignorant of
Christianity as the first converts from Paganism must have been) as a
matter of _right_, and founded in the original constitution of the
Church. The new assembly still considered itself as an appendage to the
first, and its minister was still subject to the pastor of the first as
his pastor. And in time he was regarded as holding his place, not by the
will of the people to whom he ministered, but by that of the pastor who
had designated him to the work. A number of such outside assemblies
would be formed: in each the same results would follow, from the
influence of like causes. The pastor of the first and prominent Church
would find himself, though having no immediate concern in their affairs,
yet nominally the pastor of thousands of people, to whom he never
ministered, but who were under the control of those who soon began to be
styled _his_ presbyters, or inferior clergy; while he, by way of
eminence, was called the ‘_episcopos_;’ that is, in plain English, ‘the
overseer:’ a term which is employed several times in the New Testament,
but always as synonymous with ‘_presbuteros_,’ or elder; as when Paul is
said to have sent for the ‘_presbyters_,’ elders of the Church at
Ephesus, and charged them to take heed to themselves, and to all the
flock over which the Holy Spirit had made them ‘bishops’—rendered in our
version, very properly, ‘overseers.’ Now, all this may have been very
innocently done. The first of the pastors who thus acquired the control
of other Churches than his own, may have been, and probably was,
desirous, _not_ so much to extend his own power as to extend the
conquests of religion. The influence which he exerted was probably much
more dependent on his personal character than on his official position.
The people _loved_ him, and were unwilling to be _entirely_ dissevered
from his ministry. They offered him the spontaneous and unenforced
subjection of willing hearts, and sought instruction and direction from
him in their ecclesiastical affairs rather as a father in the Lord than
as the _ruler_ over their consciences. But a generation passed away.
What was at first mere courtesy had now become custom. His successor
could demand, as a right, the control which the other had, perhaps,
reluctantly retained. The bishop claimed the _right_ to designate the
ministers to the secondary Churches; he claimed the right to control
their discipline; he claimed as a right the _fees_ and revenues which
began to accrue from various sources. He found himself in a place of
power and influence. His control over so many thousands of people made
his friendship important to political aspirants. He could be useful to
the state; the state therefore confirmed his claims, and, if need be,
enforced them by the secular power. The bishop and his diocese became a
part of the apparatus of the empire, and his relations to the Churches
were established by the civil laws. Here was the first error. The
original simplicity of the Churches organization established by Christ
and the apostles was lost, and the independent local Church was
swallowed up in a _hierarchy_, or ecclesiastical establishment,
consisting of all the Churches in a certain city, or province, or
country, made subject, more or less completely, to one common head.
Congregational independence was displaced, and episcopacy was set up in
its stead. This was not done everywhere at once; nor was it _ever_ done
by _all_ the Churches. Some there were who still refused subjection to
any lord but Christ; and were for this the objects of the bitterest
persecution on the part of those who had acknowledged the supremacy of
the bishops, and formed alliance with the state.”
“Excuse me, gentlemen,” exclaimed the Bishop, who had come in after this
conversation commenced, and had taken a seat apart from the little
circle engaged in it, apparently with the determination to have no more
to say in the discussion—“Excuse me, gentlemen, but I would like to know
upon what _authority_ such statements as those to which I have just
listened can possibly be based. The explanation of the pretended rise of
Episcopacy is certainly very ingenious, and to me has been very
entertaining, as will be, doubtless, the story of the innumerable evils
of which it is, I discover, to be made the parent. And it seems almost a
pity to spoil such a beautiful fabric by knocking the foundation out
from under it; and that I fancy I can do by simply asking upon what it
rests? For if any fact recorded in ecclesiastical history is certain, it
is that the Church of Christ, from the earliest days, even from the time
of the apostles themselves, was organized upon the Episcopal plan, and
recognized three orders of the ministry: to the first of which (that is,
the bishops) was given this exclusive authority to ordain to the
ministry, and exercise the discipline of the Churches.”
“It is very easy,” replied Mr. Courtney, “to make confident assertions,
and sometimes very difficult to sustain them by the only admissive
testimony. You ask me upon what foundation I base my explanation of the
rise of the Episcopacy, and by what authority I have made such
statements concerning it. I will answer you frankly and freely.
“In the _first_ place, we have, by a careful study of this book, [laying
his hand upon the Bible], ascertained that the Churches established by
the apostles were independent, local Churches. There is no such thing as
a hierarchy there. There is no Church mentioned there which subjected
any other Church to itself, or became itself subject to any other. If,
therefore, Churches became thus dependent and confederated in the
apostles’ days, it must have been after the canon of the Scripture was
closed.
“In the next place, it is, I believe, the _unanimous testimony_ of those
who have written impartially the history of the first Churches, that
they continued to be thus independent _at least_ until the second
century.
“What says the learned Mosheim? ‘A bishop, during the first and second
centuries, was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly,
which at that time was generally small enough to be contained in a
private house. In this assembly he acted, not so much with the authority
of a _master_ as with the zeal and diligence of a faithful _servant_. He
instructed the people, performed the several parts of Divine worship,
attended the sick, and inspected into the circumstances and supplies of
the poor.’ (See vol. i., _Ecclesiastical History_, pp 100–106.)
“But when he comes to speak of the third century, he says, ‘The face of
things now began to change in the Christian Church. The ancient method
of ecclesiastical government _seemed_ still to subsist in general, while
at the same time, by imperceptible steps, it varied from the primitive
rule and degenerated toward the form of a religious monarchy. For the
bishops aspired to higher degrees of power than they had formerly
possessed; and not only violated the rights of the _people_, but also
made gradual encroachments on the privileges of the _presbyters_. And
that they might cover these usurpations with an air of justice and an
appearance of reason, _they published NEW DOCTRINES_ concerning the
_nature of the Church_, and _the Episcopal dignity_. One of the
principal authors of this change was _Cyprian_, (Bishop of Carthage,)
who pleaded for the power of the bishops with more zeal and vehemence
than had ever been hitherto employed in that cause. This change in the
form of ecclesiastical government was soon followed by a train of vices
which dishonored the character and authority of those to whom the
administration of the Church was committed. For although several yet
continued to exhibit to the world illustrious examples of primitive
piety and Christian virtue, yet many were sunk in luxury and
voluptuousness, puffed up with vanity, arrogance, and ambition,
possessed with a spirit of contention and discord, and addicted to many
other vices that cast an undeserved reproach upon the holy religion of
which them were the unworthy professors and ministers.’ (Pages
265–267.)
“Concerning the _fourth_ century, the same learned historian speaks as
follows: ‘The bishops, whose opulence and authority were considerably
increased since the reign of Constantine, began gradually to introduce
innovations into the form of ecclesiastical discipline, and to change
the ancient government of the Church. The first step was the entire
exclusion of the people from all part in the administration of
ecclesiastical affairs; and afterwards, they by degrees divested even
the presbyters of their ancient privileges, and their primitive rights,
that they might have no importunate protestors to control their ambition
or oppose their proceedings, and, principally, that they might either
engross to themselves, or distribute as they thought proper, the
possessions and revenues of the Church. Hence it came to pass that at
the conclusion of the fourth century there remained no more than a mere
shadow of the ancient government of the Church. Many of the privileges
which had formerly belonged to the presbyters and people were usurped by
the bishops; and many of the rights which had been formerly vested in
the universal Church were transferred to the emperors and to subordinate
officers and magistrates.’ (Page 348.)
“Similar to this is the testimony of Neander. He says—”
“But what does it matter in this dispute,” exclaimed the Bishop, “what
such writers as Mosheim, or Neander, or Coleman, may assert? They are
opposed to the Episcopacy. They wrote, in part at least, for the express
purpose of bringing it into discredit. They, and such as they, are not
disinterested, and, consequently, are not reliable witnesses.”
“I should be very sorry to believe,” replied the school master, “that
such men could not relate the real facts of the history they profess to
record, even though they _did_ believe that the existence and authority
of diocesan bishops was an unauthorized innovation upon the original
order of the Churches. But I am disposed to be very accommodating in
regard to the ecclesiastical character of my witnesses. I have such a
variety that I am sure I can satisfy the most fastidious taste. Suppose
we pass by Neander and Coleman. You surely will not object to Gibbon—the
author of the _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_. Mr. Gibbon says of
the first and second centuries: ‘The public functions of religion were
solely intrusted to the established ministers of the Church—the
_bishops_ and the _presbyters_; two appellations which, in their first
origin, appear to have distinguished the same _office_, and the _same
order of persons_. The name of _presbyter_ was expressive of their age,
or rather of then gravity or wisdom. The title of _bishop_ denoted their
inspection over the faith and manners of the Christians who were
committed to their pastoral care. In proportion to the respective
numbers of the faithful, a larger or smaller number of these _Episcopal
presbyters_ guided each infant congregation with equal authority and
with united counsels.’
“In this we have a picture of one of the earliest Churches. It was an
organized body of baptized believers, who had among them a number of
members who, on account of their wisdom and gravity, were called
presbyters, or elders; and to whom had been committed the general
oversight of the membership; and they were on this account called
_bishops_, or overseers. But Gibbon goes on to say that ‘The most
perfect equality of freedom requires the directing hand of a superior
magistrate, and the order of public deliberations soon introduces the
office of a _president_, [or chairman,] invested at least with the
authority of collecting the sentiments and of executing the resolutions
or the assembly. A regard for the public tranquillity, which would so
frequently have been interrupted by annual or by occasional elections,
induced the primitive Christians to constitute an honorable and
perpetual magistracy, and to choose one of the wisest and most holy
among their presbyters to execute, during his life, the duties of their
ecclesiastical governor; [that is, to make him perpetual president of
their congregation; or, in other words, invest him with the pastorate.]
It was under these circumstances,’ continues the historian, ‘that the
lofty title of _bishop_ began to raise itself above the humble
appellation of _presbyter_. And while the latter remained the most
natural distinction for the members of every Christian senate, the
former was appropriated to its new _president_. The pious and humble
presbyters, who were first dignified with the Episcopal title, could not
possess, and would probably have rejected, the power and pomp which now
encircle the tiara of the Roman pontiff, or the mitre of a German
prelate. The _primitive_ _bishops were considered only as the FIRST of
their EQUALS_, and the honorable _servants_ of a free people. Whenever
the Episcopal chair became vacant by death, a new president was chosen
among the presbyters, _by the suffrage OF THE WHOLE CONGREGATION_. Such
was the mild and equal constitution by which the Christians were
governed more than a hundred years after the death of the apostles.’
(_Decline and Fall_, vol. ii., pp. 272, 275.)
“Here is, according to Gibbon, whom you will admit to be an impartial
witness, a direct assertion of the fact that the elders and bishops were
at first the same, and, for more than a hundred years after the apostles
had died, there was no other distinction between them, except that the
title of bishop began to be appropriated exclusively to _that_ presbyter
whom some Church had chosen, by the vote of the whole congregation, to
_preside_ in their meetings and execute their decisions. But now, when
he comes to speak of the _third_ century, he presents a different
picture:
“‘As the legislative authority of the particular Churches was insensibly
superseded by the use of councils, the bishops obtained by their
alliance a much larger share of executive and arbitrary power. And, as
coon as they were connected by a sense of their common interest, they
were enabled to attack, with united vigor, the original rights of the
clergy and people. The prelates of the third century imperceptibly
changed the language of _exhortation_ to that of _command_, scattered
the seeds of future usurpations, and supplied, by Scripture allegories
and declamatory rhetoric, their deficiency of force and reason. They
exalted the unity and power of the Church, as it was represented in the
Episcopal office, of which every bishop enjoyed an equal and undivided
portion. Princes and magistrates, it was often repeated, might boast an
earthly claim to a transitory dominion. It was the Episcopal authority
alone that was derived from the Deity, and extended itself over this and
another world. Bishops were the vicegerents of Christ, the successors of
the apostles, and the mystic substitutes of the high-priest of the
Mosaic law. Their exclusive privilege of conferring the sacerdotal
character invaded the freedom both of the clerical and popular
elections. And if, in the administration of the Church, they sometimes
consulted the judgment of the presbyters, or the inclination of the
people, they most carefully inculcated the merit of such a voluntary
condescension.’ (Vol. 1, pp. 276, 277.)
“Surely Mr. Gibbon sustains substantially what I asserted. The Church is
at first a local society, governed by several presbyters. One of these
is presently selected by the whole congregation to preside over their
deliberations, and execute their will. To him, in time, the title of
bishop, which had at first been given to all the presbyters, becomes
specially appropriated. But yet, though a bishop, he is bishop only of
the one local society, and is among them rather a servant than a ruler.
This continues till the third century. Then the bishops begin to combine
to elevate the Episcopal office. Then they begin to change the language
of exhortation to that of command. Then, so far from regarding
themselves as the _servants_ of Christ’s people, they claim to be
successors of the apostles and vicegerents of Christ himself.”
“But,” replied the Bishop, “you must be well aware that Gibbon was an
infidel, and an enemy to the Christian religion; and, consequently, not
the most reliable authority in matters of ecclesiastical polity.”
“Certainly, sir; and I would not have thought of referring to him if he
had not been; and that in regard to this very point most fully endorsed
by Dr. Haweis, one of your own most eminent divines, and the historian
of your own Church. Dr. Haweis says, ‘Where no immediate bias to distort
the truth leaves him an impartial witness, I will quote Gibbon with
pleasure. I am conscious that his authority is more likely to weigh with
the world in general than mine; _I will therefore simply repeat his
account of the primitive Church_; I think we shall not _on this point_
greatly differ.’ (_Eccl. Hist._, vol 1, p. 414.)
“But, if you object to Gibbon, even thus endorsed and vouched for, I am
disposed to be accommodating. I will give you testimony from the
Episcopal Church of England. Nay, I will go back and call the ancient
Fathers from their graves, and they shall testify.
“What say you to the statements of your own Episcopal Bowdler? ‘I am
aware,’ he says in his letters, ‘that in St. Jerome’s time there existed
generally, though by no means universally, this difference between the
bishop and the presbyters, namely, that to the former was then confided
the power of ordination. The transition from perfect equality to
absolute superiority was not suddenly effected. It was the growth of
time—not of years, but of centuries; the distinction of authority, or
_office_, preceding that of order, or decree in the Church, and being
introductory to it. With the former (the distinction in _office_) I have
no concern; it being sufficient to show that, as a distinct and superior
order in the Church, Episcopacy, in the modern acceptation of the term,
_did not exist_ in the time of the apostles; and that, however expedient
and desirable such un institution might be, it cannot plead the sanction
of apostolic appointment or example. It may be difficult to fix the
period exactly when the Episcopate was first recognized as a distinct
_order_ in the Church, and when the consecration of bishops, _as such_,
came into general thus. Clearly not, I think, when St. Jerome wrote.
This much, at least, is _certain_, namely, that the government of each
Church, including the ordination of ministers, was at first in the hands
of the presbytery, [the company of elders embraced in its numbers;] that
when one of that body was raised to the office of president, and on whom
the title of bishop was conferred, it was simply by the election
(_co-optatio_) of the other presbyters, whose appointment was final,
requiring no confirmation or consecration at the hands of any other
prelates; _and that each Church was essentially independent_ of every
other.’
“But Bowdler, I know, though an Episcopalian, was a layman; and perhaps,
as you are disposed to be so very particular about the ecclesiastical
relations of your witnesses, you may prefer the testimony of a bishop;
nay, of an archbishop, and be one of the most eminent for his learning
and logic. What says Archbishop Whateley upon this subject? Does he deny
that the first Churches were independent, and the first bishops were
bishops or pastors of only a single local society? ‘Though there was,’
he says, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism, for all of these, yet _they
were each a distinct, independent community_ on earth; united by the
common principles on which they were founded, by their mutual agreement,
affection, and respect; but _not_ having any one recognized head on
earth, or acknowledging any sovereignty one of those societies over
others. Each bishop originally presided over one entire Church.’
(_Kingdom of Christ_.)
“And, if it will not seem wrong to come down from the nigh place of the
archbishop to the stand of a simple minister, what will you say to the
testimony of that learned and eminent Episcopal divine, John Edwards,
D.D., who, after a careful exposition of the teachings of the Fathers
upon this subject, thus concludes: ‘From all these we may gather that
the Scripture bishop was the chief of the _presbyters_, but he was not
of a distinct _order_ from them; and as for the times after the
apostles, none of these writers, [Clement, Ignatius, Cyprian,
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, etc.,] nor any ecclesiastical historian,
tells us that an order superior to presbyters was set over the
presbyters. It is true, one single person recorded to have presided over
the college of presbyters; but this college had the same power with the
single person, though not the particular dignity of the presidentship.
The short is, the _bishops_ in these times were presbyters; only he that
presided over the body of presbyters was called bishop, while the rest
were generally known by the title of presbyters; and the bishop was
still but a presbyter, as to _order_ and function; though, for
distinction’s sake, he was known by the name of _bishop_. He was
superior to the other presbyters so long as he executed his office; just
as a chairman in a committee is above the rest of the justices, whilst
he holds that place. It was generally the most ancient presbyter that
was chosen to preside over the college of presbyters; but he had no
superiority of authority. All the priority or primacy he had was that of
order. Here is the ancient pattern. Why was it not followed? To single
Fathers we may add council, who deliver the same sense. This, then, is
the true account of the matter. Bishops were elders, or presbyters; and,
therefore, of the same order. But the bishops differed from the
presbyters in this _only_: that they were chosen by the elders to
preside over them at their ecclesiastical meetings or assemblies. But,
in after ages, the presbyters of some Churches parted with their liberty
and right, and agreed among themselves that ecclesiastical matters
should be managed by the bishop only.’ (_Edwards’s Remains_, p. 253.)
“So also the famous Bishop Burnet says expressly, ‘I acknowledge bishop
and presbyter to be _one_; and so plead for no new office-bearer in the
Church. The first branch of their power is their authority to publish
the gospel, to manage the worship, and dispense the sacraments; and
_this is all that is of Divine right_ in the ministry, in which the
_bishops_ and _presbyters_ are _equal_ sharers. But, besides this, the
Church claimeth a power of jurisdiction, of making rules for discipline,
and applying and executing the same; all of which is, indeed suitable to
the common laws of society, and the general rules of Scripture, but hath
no positive warrant from any Scripture precept. And all these
constitutions of Churches into synods; and the canons of discipline
taking their rise from the division of the world into several provinces,
beginning in the second or beginning of the third century, do clearly
show that they can be derived from no Divine original; and so were, as
to their form, but mere human institutions.’
“But I will not fatigue you. This is enough from the English Church;
though but a specimen of what remains on record. It is possible you may
not be quite pleased with even these witnesses, though they be your own
brethren. They get their information from the Fathers. We can go to the
same source. To them you can surely have no objection.”
“Excuse me for interrupting you,” said Theodosia; “but I am a little
bewildered. I do not understand precisely what a discussion on
Episcopacy has to do with the Church of Rome. I have been accustomed to
associate the word _Episcopal_ with the Church of England and the
Methodists; but not with the Roman Catholics.”
“Perhaps,” replied Mr. Courtney, “I should have explained before, that
our word Episcopal is formed from the Greek word ‘_Episcopos_,’ which
signifies an overseer. It is sometimes so rendered in the New Testament,
and sometimes it is rendered bishop; which is, in fact, only the English
form of the same word. It is said by some, who profess to have traced
the several steps by which _Episcopos_ became bishop, that it first lost
the prefix ‘_E_,’ and was pronounced ‘_Piscopos_;’ then the affix ‘us,’
and was called ‘_Piscop_;’ then, by a common transition, ‘P’ became ‘B,’
and it was ‘_Biscop_.’ Then the ‘c’ was changed to ‘h,’ and it became
our common word, bishop. So you see that Episcopal is the same as
Bishopical if there were only such a word. The Episcopal Church is the
Bishopical Church; that is, the Church that is governed by bishops. So
the Methodist Episcopal Church is that portion of the Methodist
denomination which is subject to bishops, as distinguished from the
Protestant or Independent Methodists, who refuse to acknowledge their
authority. Now it is the peculiar characteristic of the Episcopal and
Methodist Churches, that they are controlled by bishops; but they have
both inherited this peculiarity in consequence of their regular descent
from Rome. It is a part of the system of Popery, which they have
retained.
“You inquired, some time since, by what process these which had been the
Churches of Jesus became the persecutors of his people? I replied, that
the first step seems to have been taken by giving up their
_independence_ as separate, local organizations, and becoming united in
a hierarchy, in which they were subject to bishops; or, in other words,
it was the setting up of the Episcopacy.
“Our friend here took issue with me upon this point, and assured us that
it was as certain as any historical fact could be, that no such change
from independence to Episcopacy had ever been made, since the Episcopacy
existed from the very first, and was the order which was established by
Christ and the apostles.
“I have been trying to convince him that did not speak without authority
when I said the change was made; and described briefly the manner in
which it was brought about. If any reliance is to be placed on the
testimony of men who, like the Magdeburg Centuriators, Mosheim, Neander,
and other ecclesiastical historians, have made Christian antiquities the
object of their most laborious and careful investigation, my statements
are fully sustained. But, as some of these way have been suspected of
some latent aversion to Episcopacy, I have quoted Episcopalians, stating
the same things. And now I propose to bring up the testimony of the
Fathers, as they are called; that is, those Christian writer whose works
have escaped the tooth of all-devouring time and have come down to us
from the very days when this change was made. These, after all, must
decide the question; for modern historians and divines can only tell us
what, in their opinion, the Fathers did actually say upon the subject.”
“But, Mr. Courtney, why can we not decide this question by the
_Scriptures_? If we cannot find Episcopacy in the Scriptures, it must,
as a matter of course, have been introduced after they were written; or,
_if introduced before_, must be without any binding authority on us. I
don’t like to be dependent on mere _human_ testimony, when we have the
infallible Word for our guide.”
“We have already ascertained, madam, that the _Scripture_ Churches were
_independent_ Churches: that each one had in itself all that was needful
to make it a complete Church; and that, so far from being subject to the
rule of a bishop from without, it was itself the administrator of
Christ’s laws; and, such, had the making, and, if need be, the unmaking,
of bishops in its hands. The bishops were its servants, not its
masters.”
“Then you admit that the Scripture Churches _had_ bishops?”
“Surely they had. So for as practicable, every Church had its bishop,
and some of tuna had several bishops. Every minister who hod the
charge—the oversight—of a Church, either exclusively to himself, or in
conjunction with other ministers, was, according to the Scriptures,
designated a bishop. There were plenty of Bishops; there were as many
bishops as there were pastors; and, in a certain sense, the Churches
were _subject_ to their bishops. But no Church was subject to any bishop
but _her own_, chosen by herself to conduct her worship and _preside_ in
her business meetings.”
“I see now how it was,” said Theodosia; “and begin to understand the
reason why my mind has all the time been confused. The word bishop, in
the New Testament, means one thing, and in modern English another, and a
very different thing. Then, a bishop was the simple pastor of a Church.
Now, he is the ruler of a diocese, including all the Churches in a
certain province, state, or district of country.”
“Precisely so,” said Mr. Courtney. But the change is not merely in the
number of Churches subjected to his supervision; but in the nature of
the relation which he sustains to them. Then the bishop was chosen from
their own members by the Church to be her pastor. Now the bishop is
created by some power outside the Church; and _he_ chooses a pastor for
the Church, and sends him to her, whether she desire it or not. Then the
Church received herself those whom she thought worthy of membership.
Now, the members can only be received by the bishop, or his deputy, the
priest or minister in charge. Then the Church exercised the needful
discipline upon her own members, reproving, suspending, excluding, or
restoring, as the executive and judiciary of Christ; but now all this is
done without her voice, by the bishop or his representatives. The
Church, which was the independent executive of Christ the King, has
become the abject dependent of a man-made master. Now, we were inquiring
_how this change was brought about_? I have given you the testimony of
Mosheim and of Gibbon. I might have given you that of Neander, Schaff,
Coleman, and Bunsen; and, in fact, of almost every author of
ecclesiastical history who has gone back to this early day, and given a
picture of the first Churches in this particular. They all agree that
the Church, at first, was a local, independent society, or organization,
and that the bishop was but the pastor of one of these Churches in
regard to the distinction between the presbyters and bishops, some
regard these as but two different words for the same thing. Some think
that when there were more elders than one, which seems generally to have
been the case, one of them was chosen to preside in their meetings, and
he was called bishop. But he was still only the president, or bishop, of
that local Church. All agree that, at an early day, when mission
Churches, so to speak, began to grow up around some principal Church,
the bishop of that Church began to be considered the bishop of the
subordinate Churches, and these Churches subject to the control of that
first established; and thus the foundation was laid for that system of
despotism which has since so utterly destroyed the original freedom of
all those Churches which have become subject to the bishops, whether in
the Grecian, the Roman, the English, or the Methodist communions.
“I have said that the general correctness of this view was conceded by
many eminent Episcopalians themselves, the testimony of some of whom I
have repeated. And now, I will show you from the Fathers themselves that
such a change as I have asserted was actually made. It has been
customary for the advocates of the Divine origin of Episcopacy to appeal
with great confidence to the testimony of the Fathers. One of them
writes as follows: ‘Is it not reasonable to suppose that the primitive
Fathers of the Church must have been well acquainted with the mode of
ecclesiastical government established by Christ and his apostles? Now,
_their_ testimony is _universally_ in our favor. What course, then, have
the enemies of Episcopacy for the most part pursued? Why, they have
endeavored, by every art of misrepresentation, to invalidate this
testimony of the Fathers.’ If others have done so, I will not. Let the
testimony of the Fathers stand for all it is worth. I welcome them as
the best of witnesses as to what existed and as to what transpired in
their days. But I will not believe that the Church of Christ is to be
any thing different from that which we can find in the Scriptures, even
on the testimony of the Fathers, and martyrs besides. The Bible for me,
before all the Fathers that ever wrote, and all the martyrs that ever
bled. So, after I have found the scriptural Church to be a local and
independent body, I will not change it into a hierarchy, though every
Father and every martyr in the catalogue should unite in testifying that
in their day it was a hierarchy. If _Christ_ set up the hierarchy, and
makes it binding on his people, we should have the record of it in his
Word. If _men_ set it up, without his authority, I do not care how
_early_ they did it, nor how many or clear the testimonies that it was
set up. My Church must be the Church of Christ, and not of the Fathers.
If the Fathers testify that Christ laid down the plan of the hierarchy
in the Scriptures, I would simply say, I can and must examine the
Scriptures for myself. If I _cannot find it there_, I cannot believe _it
is_ there. If the Fathers merely assert that it existed in their _day_,
I in ready to admit it, and let the advocates of the bishops make the
most they can out of it. What if it did exist? Its existence is nothing,
unless it can be shown that it existed by the authority of the Master.”
“Its existence,” replied the Bishop, who had listened with great
apparent indifference to this long speech of the schoolmaster—“its
existence in the days of the Fathers proves that it _began_ before their
days. And since some of them had seen and conversed with the apostles,
it follows that it must have begun in the times of the apostles. And if
it began in their day, and we find no expression of their
disapprobation, it must be conceded that it had their sanction and
authority.”
“I am willing to grant all that,” said Mr. Courtney; “and if you will
show me that the hierarchy had been established, and that _prelatical_
bishops, _diocesan_ bishops, or any other bishops than those spoken of
in the New Testament, who were, as we have seen, the bishops of a single
congregation or one local Church, were in existence during the lifetime
of any of the Fathers who had spoken with the apostles, I will yield the
point, and admit that the apostles taught one thing in their writings,
and sanctioned its opposite in their practice. Nay, I will go farther—I
will yield it if you will show me such a prelatical bishop any time
before the beginning of the third century, or before the _change_ of
which I have been talking so much had taken place. I know very well that
Clement of Rome, who lived towards the last of the first century, and
who, it is supposed, had conversed with Peter and Paul, wrote an epistle
to the Church at Corinth, in which he mentions bishops, and deacons, and
presbyters. So the New Testament, in a variety of places, speaks of
bishops, deacons, and presbyters. The question is, Who were _these_
bishops? Paul sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders, that is,
the presbyters of _that_ Church, and said to them at parting, ‘Take heed
to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you _bishops_.’ Did
not Paul mean the _same persons_, by bishops, whom Luke calls presbyters
or elders? They were but two different titles for the same officers. If
they were prelatical bishops, then there were several prelatical bishops
in the one city.
“So Paul, writing to Titus, says, that he left him in Crete, among other
things, that he might ordain them elders—‘_Presbuteros_’—in every city;
and then goes on to give him instruction concerning the qualifications
for the office, and tells him a bishop—_Episcopos_—must be blameless as
the steward of God.
“When he writes to Timothy on the same subject, he mentions only deacons
and _bishops_; but says not a word about the presbyters. Yet he was
instructing him in regard to the officers of a Church. Presbyters,
therefore, must be included in the term bishop; for it is evident he did
not mean to overlook them, since he mentions them expressly afterwards
in the same epistle.
“But if this leave any doubt, it must to removed by what he says to the
Philippians: ‘To the saints which are at Philippi, with the bishops and
deacons.’ ‘How is this?’ says Chrysostom, one of the Fathers. ‘Were
there many bishops in the same city? By no means; but he calls the
_presbyters_ by this name, (_bishops_,) for at that time this was the
common appellation of both.’
“So Peter exhorts the presbyters to feed the flock of God, taking the
oversight thereof—literally, bishoping it—(_Episcopountes_.) The
presbyters are called bishops; they are to have the same qualifications,
and are to perform the same duties. It is as clear as it can be made
that the two terms are employed indiscriminately, and are entirely
synonymous. Now, as the Scriptures thus employ the word bishop so do the
earliest Fathers. The bishops Clement speaks of are therefore simple
presbyters.
“Hermas, also of Rome, is the next of the Fathers commonly quoted on
this subject. He too speaks of those who preside over the Church: ‘Thou
shalt say to those who preside over the Church that they order their
ways in righteousness, that they may fully receive the promise in much
glory.’
“Now, who are these why preside over the Church? They are the
presbyters; for he says, further on, ‘After this I saw a vision at home,
in my own house; and the old woman whom I had seen before came to me,
and asked me if I had yet delivered her book to the _elders_,
(presbyters;) and I answered that I had not yet. She replied, Thou hast
done well, for I have certain more words to tell thee; and when I have
finished all the words, they shall be clearly understood by the elect.
And thou shalt write two books, and send one to Clement, and one to
Grapte. For Clement shall send it to the foreign cities, because it is
permitted him to do so. But Grapte shall admonish the widows and
orphans. But thou shalt read in this city with _the elders who preside
over the Church_.’ Whether these presiding officers were benefited by
the admonitions of the old woman’s book or not, it is certain they were
_elders_. And in another place, he expressly calls them bishops. ‘For
what concerns the tenth mountain, on which were the trees covering the
cattle, they are such as have believed, and some of them have been
BISHOPS; _that is_, PRESIDENTS OF THE CHURCHES.’
“The next in order of the earliest Fathers is Polycarp. He never employs
the word bishop; but often speaks of the elders, or presbyters, and
deacons. He uses such language concerning the presbyters as to show that
they were the presidents of the Church. ‘Let the presbyters be
compassionate and merciful towards all, turning them from their errors,
seeking out those who are weak, not forgetting the widows, the
fatherless, and the poor; abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons,
and unrighteous judgment; not easy to believe any thing against any;
_nor severe in judgment_, knowing that we are all debtors in point of
law.’
“Paphias, who was a companion of Polycarp, and a disciple of John, in a
fragment of his writings preserved by Eusebius, calls the apostles
_presbyters_, as they sometimes called themselves; but makes no mention
of bishops. ‘I shall not think it grievous,’ he says, ‘to set down in
writing the things which I have learned of the _presbyters_: what
_Andrew_, what _Peter_, what _Philip_, what _Thomas_, or _James_ had
said; what _John_, or _Matthew_, or any other disciples of the Lord were
wont to say; and what _Ariston_ or _John_ the presbyter said. For I am
of the mind that I could not profit so much by reading books, as by
attending to those who spake with the living voice.’
“Irenæus, who suffered martyrdom early in the third century, and wrote
towards the close of the second, speaks as Clement and Hermas had done,
of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. We do net deny this, but we ask,
What did he mean by bishops? What sort of bishops were they? Were they
scriptural bishops, or prelatical bishops? Were these bishops not
pastors of single Churches, but lords over all the Churches in a certain
diocese or district? It is enough to say that he, like Paul, employs the
words presbyter and bishop indiscriminately, to signify the very same
persons and officers. In one place he says, ‘We can enumerate those who
were constituted _bishops_ by the apostles in the Churches, and their
successors even to us.’
“In another, ‘Obey those _presbyters_ in the Church who have the
succession, as we have shown, from the apostles; who with the succession
of the episcopate [_or bishopric_] received the gift of truth.’
“He mentions by name those who had governed the Church of Rome from the
first down to his own time; and says, they had the _episcopate_. And, in
another place, he mentions them again by name, and calls them
_presbyters_.
“Justin Martyr, who lived in the second century, in the famous apology
which he wrote to the emperor, speaks several times of the president:
‘The president having given thanks:’ ‘the president delivers a
discourse,’ etc. Now, as he was giving an account of each Christian
congregation, it is evident that each one had its own president; and if
the president was the bishop, it follows that every Church had its own
bishop; or, in other words, the bishop was simply the pastor. Clement of
Alexandria speaks of deacons, presbyters, and bishops; but he also uses
the word bishop in the same sense. He says that on a certain occasion
the Apostle John gave a certain young man into the charge of a
particular _bishop_, and that the _presbyter_ [meaning the same man]
took him home to his own house, nourished, comforted, cherished, and at
length baptized him.”
“I have purposely abstained from interrupting your disquisition,” said
the Bishop, “because I do not wish or intend to enter into an argument
under existing circumstances; but I will take the liberty merely to
rewind you that you have omitted all mention of that Father on whom the
advocates of the Episcopacy most confidently rely.”
“I know I have,” said Mr. Courtney. “I left him till the last, because
he will require some peculiar treatment. The epistles of Ignatius have
ever been the stronghold of Episcopacy; and some have concluded that it
was on this account that their genuineness has been so often called in
question. But this cannot be given as the reason why Dr. Hammond,
himself a zealous son of the Church, speaking of some of the evident
interpolations of these epistles, should have said that they were
‘senseless,’ ‘extravagant,’ and evidently the work of some ‘impostor.’
This could not be the reason why an earnest advocate of the prelacy
should say of them, ‘that these compositions will surely not be alleged
by any capable and candid advocate for primitive Episcopacy, without
great hesitation—by many they will be entirely rejected.’”
“I have heard much,” said the Doctor, “of these epistles; and yet I have
rather an indistinct conception of what they are, and what depends upon
them.”
“The epistles of Ignatius,” said the schoolmaster, “when they first
appeared, were eleven in number; and soon after, another was added; and,
after a time, three more, making the whole number fifteen. Archbishop
Wake translated them, and attempted to ascertain which of them were
genuine. He says, ‘To pass by the first and most imperfect [edition] of
them, the best that for a long time was extant contained not only a
great number of epistles falsely ascribed to this author, but even those
that were genuine so altered and corrupted that it is hard to find the
true Ignatius in them.
“‘The first that began to remedy this confusion, and to restore this
great writer to his primitive simplicity, was our most reverend and
learned Archbishop Usher, in his edition of them at Oxford, 1644.’ Usher
conceived that six of them were genuine. Wake accepted seven, though he
does not deny that the seventh is very suspicious. These six or seven
are all that Protestants now ever quote in this controversy. On these
the cause of Episcopacy is made to rest, so far as the authority of
Ignatius can give it any support.
“But it has happened recently that new materials for criticism have been
brought to light; and by their aid, the accomplished Chevalier Bunsen
has been able to determine, beyond all reasonable doubt, that four of
these seven were forgeries, and the other three had been greatly
interpolated. And that, when the writings of Ignatius alone remain, they
give no sort of support to any other Episcopacy than that which finds a
bishop in the pastor of every Church. Indeed, there are some who were
willing to grant the genuineness of all the seven, and yet would
undertake to show that, however often they might speak of bishops,
presbyters, and deacons, they meant no more in any place by bishops than
the _president_ of a single Church, which meaning it is certain that the
word acquired at a very early day. Thus the eminent Doctor, afterwards
Bishop, Stillingfleet, himself a dignitary of the Church, expressly
says: ‘Of all the thirty-five testimonies produced out of Ignatius, in
his epistle for the Episcopacy, I can meet with but _one_ which is
brought to prove the least semblance of an institution of Christ for
Episcopacy; and, if I be not much deceived, the sense of _that_ place is
clearly mistaken.’ (_Irenicum_.)
“In fact, all that is said of bishops in these epistles is entirely
consistent with the idea that he was the simple pastor of a local
Church, in which there were other elders, or _presbyters_, who were in
some sort associated with him in the management of the Church, yet
recognized him as their president, or moderator, in all their
assemblies.
“These if not all the Fathers of the first and second centuries whose
testimony is relied upon, are certainly those most relied upon. If they
used the word bishop in the _scriptural_ sense—the sense in which they
had received it—then they must mean by a bishop no more than a pastor, a
presbyter, having the charge of a congregation. If they use it in the
sense which it acquired soon after the apostles, then they mean by it
that presbyter who was chosen by the others and his Church to preside in
their meetings. In one or the other of these senses they always used it.
In no case did they mean by it a _prelatical_ bishop; that is, a bishop
having the exclusive power of ordination and of discipline—not in one
Church alone, but over all within a certain _diocese_. They had no idea
of _such_ a bishop: such a one had not yet existed. There was as yet no
Church which was subject to the rule of any other bishop than the one
whom she had chosen. Theodoret, Cyprian, Augustine, and others, who
lived in later times, represented the power of the bishop as already
established. The Church had lost her independence. Jerome explains how
it was done. He lived in the latter part of the fourth century, and
after the hierarchy had been set up and established, but before men had
forgotten that it had come in the place of something else. He was the
most learned of all the Fathers, and one of the most eloquent of men.
Nothing can be more plain and explicit than his testimony on this
subject. Hear what he says in his commentary on the epistle to Titus
‘Let us attend carefully to the words of the apostle, saying, _that thou
mayest ordain elders in every city, as I have appointed thee_; who,
discoursing in what follows what sort of presbyter is to be ordained,
saith, “If any one be blameless, the husband of one wife,” etc.,
afterwards adds, “For a _bishop_ must be blameless, as the steward of
God.” A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop. And before there
were, by the devil’s instinct, parties in religion, and it was said
among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the
Churches were governed by the common council of presbyters. But
afterwards, when every one thought that those whom he had baptized were
rather his than Christ’s, it was determined by the whole world that
_one_ of the presbyters should be set above the rest, to whom all care
of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schism might be taken
away. If any suppose that this is our opinion, and not that of the
Scriptures, that bishops and presbyters are the same, and that one is
the name of age, and the other of office, let him read the words of the
apostle to the Philippians, saying, “_Paul and Timothy, the servants of
Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi,
with the BISHOPS AND DEACONS_.” _Philippi_ is a city of _Macedonia_; and
certainly in one city there could not be more than _one_ bishop, as they
are now styled. But at that time they called the same men _bishops_ whom
they called _presbyters_. Therefore he speaks indifferently of bishops
as of presbyters. This may seem, even yet, doubtful to some, till it be
proved by another testimony. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles,
that when the apostle came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus, and called
the presbyters of that Church, to whom, among other things, he said,
“Take heed to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you
_bishops_, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his
own blood.” Here observe diligently, that calling together the
presbyters of one city, Ephesus, he afterwards styles the same persons
bishops. If any will receive that epistle which is written in the name
of Paul to the Hebrews, there also the care of the Church is equally
divided among many; since he writes to the people, “Obey them that have
the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls
as those that must give an account, that they may do it with joy and not
with grief, for that is unprofitable for you.” And Peter, (so called
from the firmness of his faith,) in his epistle, saith, “The presbyters
which are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter and a witness of
the sufferings of Christ; and also a partaker of the glory which shall
be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you; not by
constraint, but willingly.” These things have I written to show that
among the ancients presbyters and bishops were the very same. But by
little and little, that the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the
whole care was devolved on one. As, therefore, the presbyters know that
by _the custom of the Church_ [not by the authority of Christ] they are
subject to him who is their president, so let the _bishops_ know that
_they_ are above presbyters, more by the custom of the Church than by
the true dispensation of Christ; and that they ought to rule the Church
in common, imitating Moses, who, when he might alone rule the people of
Israel, chose seventy, with whom he might judge the people.’
“Such is the testimony of this most learned Father, after the change was
made. He says the bishops of his day _knew_ that they were above the
presbyters, not by the command of Christ, not by the original
constitution of the Church, but that, little by little, the chance had
been brought in by the custom of the Church. To the same purpose, and,
if possible, still more explicit, in _his letter to EVAGRIUS_: ‘I hear
that a certain person has broken out into such folly, that he prefers
deacons before _presbyters_—that is, before _bishops_. For when the
apostle clearly teaches that presbyters and bishops were the same, who
can endure it that a minister of tables and widows should proudly exalt
himself above those at whose prayers the body and blood of Christ is
made? Do you seek for authority? Hear that testimony: “_Paul and
Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus
that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons._” Would you have
another example? In the Acts of the Apostles Paul speaks thus to the
priests of one Church: “_Take heed_ _to yourselves, and to all the flock
over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops: that you govern the
Church, which he hath purchased with his own blood._” And, lest any
should contend about there being a plurality of bishops in one Church,
hear also another testimony, by which it may most manifestly be proved
that a bishop and presbyter are the same: “_For this cause left I thee
in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting,
and ordain presbyters in every city, as I have appointed thee. If any be
blameless, the husband of one wife_,” etc. “For _a_ BISHOP _must_ be
blameless, as the steward of God.” And to Timothy: “_Neglect not the
gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, by the laying on
of the hands of the PRESBYTERY._” And Peter also, in his first epistle,
saith, “_The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am also a_
PRESBYTER, _and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a
partaker of the glory that shall be revealed, to rule the flock of
Christ, and to inspect it, not of constraint, but willingly, according
to God._” Which is more significantly expressed in the Greek
_Episcopountes_—that is, superintending it, whence the name of bishop is
drawn.
“‘Do the testimonies of such men seem small to thee? Let the evangelical
trumpet sound the son of thunder, whom Jesus loved much, who drank the
streams of doctrine from our Saviour’s breast: “_The presbyter to the
elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth._” And in another
epistle: “_The presbyter to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in the
truth._” But that one was afterwards chosen who should be set above the
rest, was done as a remedy against schism, lest every one, drawing the
Church of Christ to himself, should break it in pieces. For at
Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist to Heraclas and Dionysius, the
bishops thereof, the presbyters always named one chosen from among
themselves and placed in a higher degree bishop; as if an army should
make an emperor, or the deacons should choose one of themselves whom
they knew to be most diligent, and call him archdeacon.’
“This,” continued the schoolmaster, “was what one who has since been
called a _saint_, and who deserved the title better than most of those
so named, said about the origin of the bishop government in the Church
more than fourteen hundred years ago.”
“Perhaps,” suggested Theodosia, “he was peculiar in his opinions, and
differed from all others of his time.”
“So far from it, madam, we find the very same information in the
writings of most of his contemporaries, whose works have survived the
destruction of the dark ages which followed; not indeed so formally, but
quite as unmistakably, announced.
“Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, writing to this same Jerome, who was only a
presbyter, uses the following language: ‘I entreat you to correct me
faithfully, when you see I need it; for although, according to the
_names of honor which the custom of the Church has NOW_ brought into
use, the office of bishop is greater than that of presbyter;
nevertheless, Augustine is, in many respects, inferior to Jerome.’
“Bishop Jewel, in his defence of his apology for the Church of England;
refers to this passage, to show that bishops and presbyters were
originally the same; and thus translates it: ‘The office of bishop is
above the office of priest, not by authority of the Scriptures, but
after the names of honor which the custom of the Church hath now
obtained.’ St. Ambrose, sometimes called St. Hilary, who lived and wrote
at the same time, says, ‘After that Churches were planted in all places,
and officers ordained, _matters were settled otherwise than they were in
the beginning_. And hence it is that the apostle’s writings do not in
all things agree to the present constitution of the Church, [A. D. 376,]
because they were written under the first rise of the Church; for he
calls Timothy, who was created a _presbyter_ by him, a _bishop_, FOR SO
AT FIRST THE PRESBYTERS WERE CALLED. Among whom this was the course of
governing Churches—that, as one withdrew, another took his place. And in
Egypt, even to this day, the presbyters ordain in the bishop’s absence.
But, because the succeeding presbyters began to be found unworthy to
hold the first place, the method _was changed_, the council providing
that not order, but merit, should create a bishop.’
“Chrysostom was another Father who lived and wrote about the same time,
or somewhat later. Here is what he says, in his homily on the Epistle to
Timothy: ‘The apostle having discoursed concerning the _bishops_, and
described them, declaring what they ought to be, and from what they
ought to abstain, omitting the order of _presbyters_, descends to the
_deacons_. And why so? Because between bishop and presbyter there is
scarcely any difference. And to them [the presbyters] is committed both
the _instructions_ and the PRESIDENCY of the Church; and whatever he
said of _bishops_ agrees also to presbyters. In _ordination alone_ have
they gone beyond the presbyters, and of this they seem to have
_defrauded_ them.’
“Theodoret, who wrote somewhat later still—early in the fifth
century—commenting on the same passage, says, ‘The apostles call a
presbyter a bishop, as we showed when we expounded the Epistle to the
Philippians, and which may also be learned from this place; for, after
the precepts proper to bishops, he describes the things that belong to
deacons. But, as I have said, they _of old_ called the _same men_ both
bishops and presbyters.’
“So also others; but these are enough for our purpose, and perhaps too
much for the patience of our friends.”
“But let me ask,” said Doctor Thinkwell, “if these same writers are not
all referred to by the advocates of the Episcopacy, as admitting its
existence and advocating its claims?”
“What if they are? They _did_ admit its existence; and some of them were
themselves a part of it. They _did_ approve it, at least so far as to
exercise the Episcopal authority themselves, or to submit to it in
others. There is no difficulty in proving this; but what of it? Our
question is not whether this rule of the bishops existed _then_; but
whether it _had_ existed from the first? and whether its existence then
was not the result of a _change_ in the original constitution of the
Churches?
“I grant that there were bishops in the days of Jerome, and of Eusebius,
the historian, who lived before Jerome. I grant that, in their day, the
bishops were a higher order than the other clergy. I grant that the
Churches were then _ruled by the bishops_. I grant that Eusebius gives
us catalogues of the bishops whom he says had succeeded each other from
the days of the apostles. But I say that the bishop of that day was not
the bishop of the apostles’ days. He is called by the same _name_, but
he is not the same _thing_; and this I have proved by these Fathers
themselves. It is just so with baptism. Christ’s baptism was immersion.
The Church of Rome has set aside immersion, and substituted pouring or
sprinkling, and called this act baptism. The name is the same, but the
thing is changed. It is just so with the Lord’s Supper. The Church of
Rome gives a bit of consecrated wafer to her communicants, but withholds
the wine. The Supper instituted by our Lord was both bread and wine. She
has _changed_ the ordinance, but calls it by the same name. So it is in
regard to deacons. The deacon of the New Testament and the first
Churches was one appointed to attend to the _secular_ affairs of the
Church. As Jerome says, he was ‘the servant of tables and widows.’ But
the Church of Rome and the Church of England have made him a minister of
the word, and yet call him by the same name. Here is the fallacy by
which the simple and incautious are entrapped and deluded. It is the
thing, and not the name, that we must look after. There is now, in some
_ecclesiastical establishments_, called Churches, a class of officers
called _bishops_; and there was in the Churches _of Christ_, as
established by the apostles, a class of officers called _bishops_. Of
this there is no doubt. But then, the modern bishop is _one_ thing, and
the _scriptural_ bishop was another and a very _different_ thing. The
scriptural bishop was a simple pastor of a single Church, or sometimes
the joint pastor, with several others, all his equals in rank, all
called presbyters, and all called bishops, as in the address of Paul to
those of Ephesus. The modern bishop is _not_ the pastor of a single
Church, jointly with others, or by himself alone. He is a _prelate_:
counts other ministers his inferiors, and lords it over all the Churches
in a diocese. The ancient bishop was the _servant_ of a single Church:
the modern is the _master_ of many Churches. The ancient bishop was at
first identical with the presbyter or elder. And even after the first
distinction was made, when _that elder_, who was chosen, for the sake of
order, to _preside_ in the Church-meetings, was called _bishop_, he was
still only the equal of his brother presbyters, the fellow-servant with
them of the single Church to which they all belonged. But the modern
bishop is the master of the _elders_, as well as of the Churches. He
says to one, Go, and he goeth; to another, Come, and he cometh; and to
all of them, Do thus, and they obey him.
“The ancient bishop _was chosen_ by the presbyters and the Church to
preside over them. The modern chooses the presbyters, and sends them to
minister where he will. And yet men who are, or ought to be, familiar
with all these facts, and these men the professed lovers of truth, the
avowed ministers of Jesus, have the effrontery to contend that bishops,
in this modern sense, have _always_ existed in the Church, amply because
they can trace the word down to the apostles themselves.
“But I ask your pardon: I am talking too long. We have spent too much
time already upon this point; especially as we shall probably have
occasion to refer to it again, when we come to investigate the claims of
the Episcopal Church. You will remember that it now came up
incidentally, and not entirely in the order of our discussion. I have,
however, redeemed my pledge. I have shown, by the testimony of standard
historians, by the concessions of the most zealous advocates of the
bishop’s power, and by the Fathers themselves, that the Episcopate, in
the modern understanding of it, was an _innovation_ upon the order
established by Christ. It was, as have stated, probably the _first_ of
those changes by which the Churches were finally involved in utter
apostasy. They cast off the rule of _Christ_ as their sole Lord and
King, and subjected themselves to the bishops.”
“Was it not strange,” asked Mr. Percy, “that this should have been done
without resistance or remonstrance?”
“It was done, as Jerome says, ‘_paulatim_’—by little and little, so
gradually as scarcely to excite alarm. But yet it was not done without
remonstrance. How many complained, and yet submitted, we do not know.
How many Churches refused to submit, history has not recorded. But we
know that there were _many_, under various names, and in various places,
who always protested against this usurpation. But when once the bishops
had obtained the power, it was no light matter to venture to dispute
their Divine right to govern; as may be seen in the case of Ærius, (not
Arius, who denied our Lords eternal Sonship, or, as some say, his
Divinity; but Ærius,) who lived about the same time with Jerome, or a
little earlier. He held the same opinion that Jerome and Augustine,
Ambrose and Chrysostom did: namely, that in the _first_ Churches bishops
and presbyters were one; and that the _authority_ which had then been
usurped by the bishops, and was, for the most part, tamely acquiesced in
by the Churches, was not conferred by the Scriptures, but only existed
by the custom of the Church. But, not like Jerome, and these others,
whom the Catholics have since dubbed _saints_, he was determined to
carry out his faith into his practice. The others acted as Chalmers, and
McKnight, and many other eminent modern divines have done in regard to
baptism. They admit that it was immersion which Christ commanded, and
the first Churches practiced; and that the change to sprinkling was made
without any express sanction of the Master. And yet they quietly
coincide with the Church; and, while contending for immersion as the
true baptism, practice the sprinkling which has, _by custom_, come into
its place. So these ancient saints, while they contended and _proved_
that the first bishops were not invested with dominion over the
Churches, yet either exercised that dominion themselves, or quietly
submitted to those who did. Ærius, however, sought to reform the error.
He openly and boldly proclaimed that bishops are, by the Scriptures, in
no way superior to the presbyters: that these were only different names
for the same office. He declaimed against feasts, and fasts, and prayers
for the dead, or to the dead; all which he regarded as _unscriptural_.
He sought to bring the Churches back to the simple gospel standard. But
by doing so, he roused a host of enemies on every side. He was quickly
silenced as a minister: denounced as a _heretic_. His followers were
excluded from the Churches, banished from the cities and towns, and
obliged to hold their meetings (as the Waldenses did afterwards, for
teaching the same doctrines) in the forests or the caverns of the
mountains.
“But let us go back. You will recollect, Mrs. Percy, that we were
endeavoring to answer your question, how it was that what had once been
Churches of Jesus Christ, became the persecutors of the true believers
and obedient disciples of the Lord. I said that the first step towards
this unhappy result was that by which the Churches lost their separate
independence, and became the subjects of a hierarchy of _bishops_. They
gave up their sole allegiance to Christ, and owned the rule of human
masters. We have spent perhaps more time than we should in showing how
that was done. But, simultaneous with that, and, like that, brought
about by little and little, was another change, still more important.
That was a change in the _government_ of the Church: this was a change
in the character of its constituent _membership_. That was a change of
_external polity_: this was a change of the very materials of which it
was composed. That set over the Church rulers whom Christ had not
appointed: this introduced into the Church members whom Christ had not
authorized. The first change, even before itself was fully consummated,
did much to prepare the way for the introduction of the second; and the
second did much in after years to perpetuate the first. Christ’s
Churches were at first, as we have seen, composed exclusively of those
who had given evidence of conversion, and had professed a rational and
personal belief in him as their Redeemer. They were a _spiritual_
people, who had been _renewed_ in the temper and disposition of their
minds; in whom the carnal enmity of the natural heart had been
supplanted with the love of God in Christ; in whom the darkness of the
natural mind had been made light in the Lord; who had been subjects of
an interior change so great that it was aptly designated a new birth, by
which they were introduced into a new life, as was symbolized in their
baptism; wherein their old life, their former self, was represented as
dead and _buried_ with Christ, and their present self as raised up again
from the dead; so that they should henceforth walk in newness of life,
or simply live a new life. The first Churches, I say, the true Churches
of Jesus Christ, were composed, or designed to be composed, of such
people as these. But very early after COUNCILS of bishops had usurped
the prerogative of Christ, and began to make laws for the government of
the Churches, they changed the conditions of membership, and substituted
_the repetition of a form of words_ for an intelligent profession of a
living faith. Grown persons, youth, and children, were taught, like
parrots, to repeat the form of words; and when they had been thus
prepared, they were initiated into the Church, and entitled to all its
privileges. The Church was therefore soon composed of unconverted men;
and they were taught that by the _ceremony_ of their initiation, by the
magic efficacy of their baptism, they had been made members of Christ
and heirs of glory; and were ready enough to obey the behests of those
_bishops_ at whose hands they now were taught eternal life could only be
obtained. Salvation was in the _sacraments_: the sacraments were in the
_Church_, and could only be available when received at the hand of the
_bishop_, or some one authorized by him. And what the bishop’s blessing
gave, the bishop’s curse could take away. The bishop had the keys of
heaven and hell. Whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive.
Not for time—that were a trifle—but his power reached beyond the grave,
and was as lasting as eternity. Who would not fear the bishop? Then, on
the other hand, the bishops loved power; and the bishops loved wealth.
Strange as it may seem, they delighted in magnificent cathedrals, and
splendid palaces, and princely ostentation. To gain wealth, they must
have subjects; to multiply subjects was the shortest way to power and
opulence. Now, each bishop claimed as his subject those who were
baptized by him or under his direction. Each, therefore, had an interest
in making the terms of entrance into the Church as easy as possible.
“At first they gave instruction to adults, and when they could repeat
the creed and catechism, admitted them to baptism. But they could not
overlook the rising generation. It would soon control the wealth and
power of the nation. That wealth and power must be made subservient to
the Church. The _youth_ therefore were all, so far as practicable,
collected and catechized, and baptized. Then the children, as soon as
they could learn the creed and say the needful formula, were brought
into the Church. Then smaller children still, as soon as they could say
the words as _prompted_ at the time. And, at length, little, puling
babes, who could not answer for themselves at all, but were obliged to
have _sponsors_ to say for them what older people had been required to
say for themselves. When these water-made Christians, these unconverted
minors, children and babes, grew up to manhood, _they were the Church_.
They had no more love for Christ and for his cause, no more of his
meekness, no more of his charity, no more of his justice, than if they
had not been baptized; no more than the heathen. Yet they were the
members; they were the deacons; they were the presbyters; they were the
bishops; and is it any wonder that, like other unconverted men, they
hated, and despised, and rejected, and persecuted the simple gospel and
the pure religion of the meek and lowly Nazarene? Is it any wonder that
a true believer, who had the courage to obey God rather than man; who
protested against this monstrous metamorphosis of Christianity, and
ventured yo intimate that _this was not the Church which Christ
established_, was at once denounced as a heretic, excommunicated as a
schismatic, banished as a disturber of the _peace of the Church_, or
_burnt_, as a warning to the faithful not to distrust the teachings of
their priests and bishops? This is the process by which the first
persecuting Churches were made; and this is the process by which every
persecuting Church has been made, down to the present time. They have
all brought in their _members_ in childhood, or infancy; and they grow
up _wicked_ men, haters of Jesus, and persecutors of his people. No
Church that bears the Christian name, and which requires the same terms
of membership that the Scriptures do, namely, personal penitence for
sin, and personal faith in Christ, has ever persecuted; and it is
remarkable that _every one_ of _all_ the Pedobaptist ecclesiastical
establishments, all these so-called Churches of Christ, have, when they
have had the power, been _persecutors_ of those who could not
conscientiously submit to their dictation.”
“That, if true, is certainly a very remarkable fact,” said the Doctor,
“and very suggestive. I do not feel disposed to question it just now;
nor will I ask you to-day for the authorities upon which you base the
account you have just now given of the introduction of infant baptism.
The picture you give is natural enough, and I could readily believe it,
if properly authenticated. But I have always taken it for granted that
infant baptism was, if not sanctioned by the apostles, one of the very
earliest innovations on their practice, and that it was introduced with
so great unanimity that there is no record of the time or manner of its
coming in, or of any opposition to it. But I will not ask you for your
testimony now. We have already had a long sitting, and we have yet
another test to apply to the Church of Rome.”
“That will not take us long. Our test is the ninth and the last. It says
that, No apostate Church can be a Church of Christ. Not that a true
Church may not, in process of time, by change of members, change of
officers, and change of laws, cease to be a true Church, and thus become
apostate; but that after she _has_ thus apostatized, she is no Church of
Christ, even though she may still retain the same name and the same
external forms that she had at first. Christ’s _institution_, called the
Church, is to be permanent and perpetual. But as many an individual
_example_ of that institution has died out and ceased to be, so many a
one has gone out from Christ’s jurisdiction, and associated with his
enemies. But when it _has_ done so it is not a Church of Christ: when it
has done so. It has no authority in his kingdom; when it has done so,
its members are no longer members of Christ’s Church; its ordinances are
no longer Christian ordinances, its ministry is no longer the Christian
ministry. _All its official acts are null and void._ It cannot therefore
be the medium of baptism to members or ordination to ministers. This is
self-evident. It is a thing of necessity, unless you admit the absurdity
that an organization which is _not_ a Church of Christ, and to which
Christ has given _no_ authority, is yet competent to perform, in a legal
and valid manner, those acts which he has intrusted exclusively to his
Church.
“I trust our friends here will _notice_ this point; I dwell upon it
because it is of vast importance.”
“How so, Mr. Courtney? I do not discover any thing so _very_ important
in it,” said Theodosia; “but I suppose it in my stupidity that prevents
me from seeing it.”
“I will tell you. The Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians,
the Methodists, and, I believe, all those denominations who are called
_Protestants_, believe and teach that the Church of Rome, so far from
being a true Church of Christ, is that _Antichrist_ which was foretold
by the apostles. They have the best of reasons for this faith. There is
no doubt that they are in this entirely correct. And yet, while they
thus believe and teach, they cannot deny the fact that _they all
received their baptism and their ordination_ from the Church of Rome.
Now, if Rome were never a Church of Christ, they could not even pretend
that it had any right to baptize or ordain, any more than the Mormon
society at Nauvoo had. Baptism and ordination conferred by them, and
received through them, would have been no more _Christian_ baptism than
if it had been received from the followers of Mohammed in Mecca. They
therefore say that Rome _was once_ a true Church, but that she has
_apostatized_ and become what she is. As she was once a Church, she
could receive and transmit true Christian baptism and valid ordination.
Now, our position is, that from the day she became _apostate_ she
_ceased to be a Church of Christ. She was no more a Church of his than
if she never had been one._ She had no more authority to act as the
administrator of the laws of his kingdom than if she had never possessed
that authority. Her baptism, after that, was no more Christian baptism
than the washing of the heathen in the pagan temples of their idol gods
was Christian baptism. The ordination of a minister by her authority and
for her service, was no more Christian ordination than the consecration
of a priest of Jupiter was Christian ordination; for she was no more a
Christian Church, and had no more authority to act in the capacity of a
Christian Church than any other company of those who hated holiness and
persecuted the true disciples of the Lord.
“This surely will not admit of doubt; it needs no argument. If any one
will dispute this, it is hardly worth while to reason with him. Christ
gave the authority to administer his ordinances and execute his laws to
his Church as the executive of _his_ kingdom. Now, when any assembly
_ceases_ to be HIS Church, it has no longer his commission. All its
rights are forfeited. It cannot carry them out of the kingdom; it cannot
exercise them as Christ’s executive, when itself no longer belongs to
Christ. A provincial government that has revolted against its king,
thrown off its allegiance, instituted new officers, made new laws,
received other subjects, and directed all its powers, physical and
mental, to the destruction of the faithful subjects of their former
king, are surely not legal administrators of the ordinances of his
kingdom. They may still _claim_ to act by his authority; they may still
employ his _name_ to give apparent sanction to their work; they may deny
that they are rebels; they may declare that the king has _no other
faithful subjects but themselves_, and gives authority to none but them.
Yet all this will not legalize their acts. Their acts will no more
possess the actual sanction of the king than if they had been done in
their own name, or in the name of some foreign potentate, whose
authority they had never pretended to recognize. The _faithful subjects_
of the king can no more recognize their acts as legal than if they had
never made any part of the kingdom. Now, suppose a subject of a foreign
power should be _naturalized_, and so entitled to all the rights of
citizenship in this revolted province, and should thence pass over to
some province which had continued faithful to the king; would that
_naturalization_ given by this revolted province entitle him to
citizenship in the _real_ kingdom? He has come among the rebels; he has
been received by the rebels; he has been naturalized by the rebels; and
he is on this account entitled to citizenship among the rebels. But now,
when he comes among the faithful, he must be naturalized by the
faithful. They cannot recognize the authority of the rebels to admit
citizens to _their_ kingdom. If he become a citizen there, he must be
naturalized there, and by the legal and undisputed authority of their
king.
“So, when a subject of Satan comes to an apostate, a revolted Church,
and is received by them, baptized by them, and thus made one of them,
and entitled to all the privileges of Church-membership among them, he
does not by this act become a member of Christ’s kingdom. This baptism
does not make him a member of any true Church of Christ. And if he
should desire to leave the rebels and unite with a true and faithful
Church, that Church could not recognize as legal, or receive as valid,
the baptism of the apostates. _And if she should receive him as a
member, without baptizing him_, she would by that act acknowledge that
_his previous baptism had been legal and valid_; and, consequently, that
the revolted and apostate Church was, at the time of conferring it, just
as much a true Church of Christ, and just as _truly authorized_ _by
Christ_ to receive members and administer his ordinance, es she is
herself.
“So also in regard to ordination. Suppose, in the revolted province,
some one who had been received and naturalized and made a citizen among
the rebels, should be by them chosen to office, by them duly initiated
and commissioned as an _officer_ to exercise among them the authority
belonging to his station; and he should choose, afterward, to go over
among the faithful subjects of the king, and claim that he was entitled
to exercise the authority of his office _there_, in the real kingdom,
what would the faithful subjects of the king be bound to do? Must they
recognize his authority? must they submit to his rule? If they do so,
they admit that the acts of the rebels are as legal and valid as their
own acts, done by order of the king. They could do no such thing. If
they received him as a _citizen_, they must first _naturalize_ him
again; for his naturalization by the rebels is nothing to them; (it did
not make him a member of the kingdom, but only of a community of
rebels.) Then, if they desired his services as an _officer_ they would
elect him as such, and commission him as such. And until he had been
thus chosen and commissioned, he could surely be no more an officer
among them, and they could no more recognize any official act of his,
than as though the rebels had never dreamed of giving him a commission
in their revolted government.
“So, when an apostate, a revolted _Church_, has first, by their
unauthorized baptism, made one a member of their apostate communion, and
then appointed him to office, and commissioned him as a minister to
exercise his proper functions in their rebel assemblies, this does not
make him a minister of any true Church of Christ. This does not empower
him to exercise the office of a minister, or make any of his ministerial
acts legal and valid, within Christ’s visible kingdom. Christ has
intrusted the selecting and commissioning of his ministers to _his_
Churches, and not to Churches which hate his people and his cause, and
employ all their powers to injure and destroy them. If this man is to
perform any official act within the true kingdom of Christ, he must
first be _ordained_ by _legal_ authority within the kingdom; and every
official act which he shall take upon him to perform, without such legal
ordination, is illegal and invalid; it is null and void, as though it
never had been done.
“This is surely all very plain; and I cannot conceive how any man of
common sense, who will take five minutes to think about it, can ever
venture to doubt or dispute it.”
“Certainly, I see all that,” said Theodosia; “but I do not yet quite
apprehend the vast importance which you seem to attach to it. I do not
yet perceive the tremendous consequences which are to follow from these
self-evident truths.”
“These consequences,” replied Mr. Courtney, “_are SO tremendous_, and
they follow _so necessarily_ and _indisputably_ from the premises which
we have laid down, that, when they _are_ seen and felt, the mind almost
instinctively rejects the premises; though, when seen without the
consequences, it cannot help admitting their truth, and, even after the
consequences are fully realized, can find no _logical_ means of setting
them aside.
“As one who stands and gazes at the desolation in the path of the
avalanche, which rushed but yesterday over some beauteous, and
luxuriant, and densely-populated valley, can hardly realize what he
beholds; but exclaims, even while he sees it all, ‘_This cannot be_.
Surely this is not the place which yesterday was thronging with busy
life and studded with peaceful dwellings, in which were beating a
thousand human hearts, with all their joys and sorrows, hopes and fears;
and now thus desolate; now thus dead. And yet it _must_ be so. This _is_
the place; and there is now the ponderous mass which made this fearful
ruin!’ So he who can be brought to look this subject fairly and fully in
the face; who will bring his mind and hold it to the point until he sees
and realizes the premises we have laid down, and the conclusion that
_must_, of logical necessity, follow, is apt to feel as though the mind
were stunned and stupefied with the result. And though he cannot show
any flaw in the argument, or offer any reason why he should think it
false, he yet exclaims, ‘_It surely cannot be true._’
“The consequence which I have spoken of is this: An apostate Church,
_after it has become apostate_, is not a Church of Christ. Her baptism
is not valid Christian baptism. Her ministers are not legal Christian
ministers. Her acts, _as a Church_, are, one and all, utterly null and
void. Now, it is admitted by Episcopalians and Presbyterians, Lutherans
and Methodists, that _the Church of Rome IS THUS APOSTATE_, and that she
WAS thus apostate _before the Reformation_. If so, she had before that
time become incapable of conferring baptism or ordination. Her baptism
was not Christian baptism, and her ministers had no authority as the
ministers of Christ. And yet the _only_ baptism and the _only_
ordination which any of these denominations have, they received _from
the Church of Rome_. It follows, therefore, if an apostate Church cannot
confer valid Christian baptism; nay, if the baptism of _Antichrist_ is
not valid Christian baptism, the founders and first members of these
Churches were not baptized; and if the _ordination of Antichrist_ could
not create a Christian minister, their ministers had never been
ordained. And now, if baptism is a necessary prerequisite to Church
membership, so that an assembly, even of good people, cannot be a true,
visible Church of Christ, unless its members have been baptized,—not
into Mohammedanism, by the authority of the false prophet; not into
Mormonism, by the authority of Joe Smith; not into Roman Catholicism, by
the authority of the Pope; but into a _genuine Christianity_, by the
authority of Jesus,—then they could not, until they _had been baptized_,
have become _true_ Churches of Christ. And unless _genuine_ and valid
baptism can be conferred by those who have themselves not been baptized,
and unless true and valid ordination can be conferred by those who have
themselves neither been baptized nor ordained, then they have _never_
received baptism, and have _never_ had a legal ministry; and,
consequently, _never have been_, ARE NOT NOW, and NEVER CAN BE, true
Churches and true ministers of Christ, until they shall have been
baptized into a real Church of baptized believers.
“They _admit_ that baptism is an essential prerequisite to
Church-membership.
“They _admit_ that no one can give true Christian baptism who has not
been himself baptized.
“They _admit_ that baptism conferred by Mohammedans or Mormons, by a
Temperance Society, or a lodge of Odd-Fellows or Freemasons, would not
be Christian baptism; but that, to be such, it must be given by _a true
Church of Christ_.
“They _admit_ that they received their baptism from _Rome_.
“And they _admit_—nay, they contend and _prove_, that Rome, so far from
being a true Church of Christ, was _Antichrist_ himself—the man of
sin—the son of perdition—the apocalyptic beast—the dragon that made war
upon the saints, and that drove the true Church into the wilderness, and
that _wore out the saints_ with cruel and incessant persecutions.
“They admit all this, and they therefore _must admit_ that they have
never had true baptism, and are not true Churches of Jesus Christ.
“They may stand and stare at the ghastly array of their admissions, and
at the overwhelming ruin in which these admissions bury up all their
claims to be regarded as true Churches. But they cannot deny that they
have made these admissions. They cannot help making them again. They
_must_ admit these things, or deny what is as open and plain as the day
to every thinking mind. They _dare not_ dispute the premises, and they
_cannot_ resist the consequence. They may lift up their hands and
stupidly exclaim, ‘This cannot be so;’ but IT IS SO, nevertheless. They
may say it is unchristian and uncharitable thus to _unchurch_ almost the
whole of Christendom. We do not do it; it is the _logic of the case_
that does the work. Neither we nor _they_ themselves can deny the
conclusion, if these admissions are once made. They may go back, if they
choose, and _retract_ these admissions. They may take them one by one,
and see if they _can_, see if they _dare_, as conscientious adherents to
the simple truth, retract a single one of then.
“Let them try it. Let them begin with the last. Will they deny that Rome
is Antichrist? We will prove it to them by arguments from the principal
defenders of each of the denominations. We will prove it from Luther,
from Calvin, from Baxter, from Doddridge, from Scott, from Benson, from
Adam Clarke, from Wesley, from Chalmers. Or, if they do not like their
own authorities, we will prove it by a comparison of the _historical
facts_ with the Scripture predictions. Nay, further, if they deny that
Rome is Antichrist; if they contend that Rome is, as she claims to be,
the true Church of Christ, then it will _follow, just as certainly_ as
before, that _THEY are NOT_ true Churches, though on different grounds.
If Rome be the _true_ Church, then they who went out from Rome were
_heretics_ and _schismatics_, and they legally are _exscinded_ and
_excluded_ from the Church. For Rome, by the authority that was in her
as Christ’s executive, has cut them off and consigned them to perdition.
So, whichever horn of the dilemma they may take, they cannot go behind
the last of these admissions. If Rome _was_ the true Church; if Rome
_was_ authorized to exercise the authority of the kingdom of Christ; if
Rome was that body to which Christ had committed the ordinances and laws
of his kingdom for preservation and execution, then the act of Rome, by
which they were cut off, was a _legal_ act; and they were _cast out_ of
the Church, and, of course, had no more authority to baptize, and
preach, and found Churches, than a deposed and excluded minister would
have now.
“If you say that they _withdrew_, and were not cut off, it does not help
the case at all; for, on the supposition that Rome _was_ the true
Church, they, in that case, went out from the true Church of Christ, and
of course no longer made a part of it, and had no authority in it. But
the first reformers _did not_ withdraw. They remained in the Church as
long as they could. They had no thought of forming a _new_ Church, but
only of reforming the old. They, as members of the Church of Rome,
_protested_ against her faith and practices. And for this they were
excluded, anathematized, and persecuted, by that apostate, corrupt, and
tyrannical hierarchy. But Protestants will not, they cannot, they dare
not, in the face of their own denunciations of Rome as an apostate
Church, and as Antichrist, recall what they have said, and fraternize
with her as a true Church of Christ. _And if they DO, it will not affect
our argument; for WE HAVE PROVED HER FALSE_, though they may count her
true. We have tried her by the Word of God, and found that she has not
one single mark of a _true_ Church of Christ. And yet, if she had every
_mark but one_, she would not be a true Church of Christ. If, therefore,
she ever was a true Church, she has become _apostate_. If she is
apostate now, she _has been_ so ever since she possessed the same
peculiarities upon which we have rejected her claims; and this was, to
say the least, long before the Reformation. The _only_ ground on which a
consistent Protestant can stand and claim that those who received their
baptism and their ordination in Rome, and yet, on coming out of her,
were true Church-members, with valid baptism and legal ordination, is
this: they may contend that when these members were received and
baptized, and when these ministers were ordained, the Church of Rome was
a _true Church of Christ_; but, in the interval which elapsed between
their baptism and ordination and their final withdrawal or expulsion,
she had become the apostate seat of sin and abode of every unclean and
hateful bird. But this they did not pretend at the time. No one will
venture to pretend it now. Bad as Rome was at the time of Luther, she
was not as bad as she had been. Her pope and cardinals, bishops and
priests, vile as they were, were decent men, in comparison with the
monsters of vice, and cruelty, and profligacy, which filled her sacred
(!) offices in the tenth and eleventh centuries. She was just then only
selling for money the privilege to sin; but she had long been accustomed
to sell for money the right to grant such privileges. She was then only
burning now and then a heretic; but she had long before been used to
murder them by thousands.
“The apostasy was not only begun, but matured, hundreds of years before
Luther was born. It was not then a thing of yesterday. Luther was born
under an apostate Church; he was baptized into an apostate Church, and
made a priest of an apostate Church; and his companions were all of them
baptized into an apostate Church, if they were baptized at all. The
_only_ baptism and the _only_ ordination that he or any of them
received, was that of a Church that had _not one single mark or feature_
of the Church of Christ; and, consequently, their baptism and ordination
was no better than if they had received it in a Mohammedan mosque, or a
Mormon temple, or a Freemason’s lodge. And since they could not give
what they had not received, the so-called Churches which they set up
have never had, and have not now, and never can have, the ordinances of
a Church of Christ, until they receive them from a true and legal
Church.
“But we need not forestall the results of our coming examination of
their several claims. We have now done with that of the Church of Rome.
We have first ‘_searched the Scriptures_,’ and found what were there
laid down as the peculiar characteristics of a true Church of Christ. We
have tried to find if Rome possessed these characteristics, and
discovered that she has not _one_.”
“I have,” said Mr. Percy, “busied myself, as we have gone along, in
making a sort of picture, or diagram, of this Church. As we had nine
marks, I divided this blank page into nine equal spaces, and writing the
marks in the margin, determined, if she was found to possess any one of
them, to leave a white space for it; if not, to make it black. And here
you see it all black, in every space, from the top to the bottom.”
“It is a good conception,” said the Doctor; “and I hope you will give us
a similar diagram of every Church whose claims may come before us. But
we are tired now; let us adjourn; and when we meet to-morrow, take up
the Church of England.”
DIAGRAM OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Signs or Marks of a True | | Marks of the Roman Catholic
Church. | | Church.
--------------------------+--------------+----------------------------
1st. It consists only of | ████████████ | It includes little children
professed believers in | | who cannot believe. See p.
Christ. | | 157.
2d. Its members have been | ████████████ | Its members were sprinkled
baptized upon a | | in infancy. See pp.
profession of their | | 188–194.
faith. | |
3d. It is a local | ████████████ | It is not a local,
organization, and | | independent organization,
independent of all | | but a vast hierarchy. See
others. | | pp. 195–197.
4th. It has Christ alone | ████████████ | It has the Pope for its
for its King and | | head and lawgiver, and
Lawgiver, and recognizes | | receives Christ’s law un
no other authority above | | subordinate to his. See p.
its own. | | 197.
5th. Its members have | ████████████ | They were made members in
become such by their own | | childhood, without their
voluntary act. | | knowledge or consent. See
| | p. 198.
6th. It holds as articles | ████████████ | It denies the fundamental
of faith the fundamental | | doctrine of salvation by
doctrines of the gospel. | | faith, and makes it depend
| | on works and sacraments.
| | See p. 199.
7th. It began with | ████████████ | Christ did not establish
Christ, and has continued | | any hierarchy. The Roman
to the present time. | | Catholic Church began long
| | after the apostles. See p.
| | 199.
8th. It never persecutes | ████████████ | It has always and
for conscience’ sake. | | everywhere been a
| | persecutor, when it had the
| | power. See pp. 201–206.
9th. No apostate Church | ████████████ | If it was ever a true
can be a Church of | | Church, it apostatized when
Christ. | | it became a hierarchy. or a
| | persecutor. See pp.
| | 245–256.
SEVENTH DAY’S TRAVEL.
“You will recollect,” said the Doctor, at the commence men of the
conversation this morning, “that there was one point suggested by your
remarks yesterday, concerning which I desired some further information;
not so much because I had any doubt of the correctness of your
statements, as because I desire to know upon what sort of evidence you
made assertions so very different from those I have been accustomed to
hear.”
“Certainly,” replied Mr. Courtney; “I remember it perfectly. You have
all your life been taught, as all Pedobaptists are, by preachers, and
books, and pamphlets, and papers, that the baptism of babes dates from
the time of Christ. And I asserted that it was introduced at a much
later period. I do not love to make assertions without giving the proof,
and am very glad that you are disposed to hear the testimony. I will
make it as concise as possible, and it will be as convincing as you can
possibly desire. I will set your mind at rest on this point at once and
for ever.
“And I say, in the _first_ place, if the baptism of babes was _not_
practiced by Christ and the apostles, it _must_ have been introduced
afterwards. This is self-evident. But now, we have carefully examined
the record of the sayings and doings of Christ and the apostles, from
Matthew to Revelation; and though we have found the baptism of many
thousands of men and women expressly mentioned, we have not discovered
any account of, or any allusion to, the baptism of one solitary babe. We
must therefore, if the record be not incomplete on this most important
point of Christian faith and practice, admit that _no infant was
baptized_. At any rate, we must so decide, unless those who say that
infant baptism was then practiced will show at least one plain,
undoubted fact on which to base their assertion. But such a fact the
most intelligent and candid Pedobaptists do not so much as pretend to
have. They say, with their learned and zealous advocate, Professor
Stuart, ‘Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament
relative to it I do not find.’
“No one ever investigated this subject with more laborious scrutiny then
Dr. Wall, the author of the ‘History of Infant Baptism;’ yet he is
forced to acknowledge that, ‘Among all the persons that are recorded as
having been baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any
infant.’
“So Luther says, expressly, ‘It cannot be proved by the Sacred
Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the
first Christians after the apostles.’
“So the learned Erasmus, in his note on Romans v. 14: ‘Paul does not
seem to treat about infants. It was not yet the custom for infants to be
baptized.’
“So the Magdeburg Centuriators: ‘Concerning the baptism of infants,
there are no examples of which we read in the first century.’
“Bishop Burnet expressly declares, ‘There is no express precept or rule
given in the New Testament for the baptism of infants.’
“I might extend this catalogue indefinitely; but I need not do so. I
will only add the testimony of the learned Limbroch, given in his System
of Divinity: ‘There is no express command for it in Scripture. Nay, all
those passages wherein baptism is commanded, do immediately relate to
adult persons, since they are ordered to be instructed, and faith is
prerequisite as a necessary qualification, which [things] are peculiar
to the adult. There is no instance can be produced from whence it may
indisputably be inferred that any child was baptized by the apostles.
The necessity of Pedobaptism was never asserted by any council before
that of Carthage, held in the year 418. We own that there is no precept
nor undoubted instance in Scripture of infant baptism.’
“Now, since we have searched for it in the Record, and could not find
it; and since these and others of the most learned, most industrious,
and most zealous advocates of infant baptism admit that they have
searched for it and cannot find it, it seems to me that we are fully
justified in concluding _that it is not there_.”
“But, Mr. Courtney, you say these men were themselves baptizers of
infants. They were pious, conscientious men How _could_ they practice
and commend that which had no Scripture authority?”
“That is a hard question, sir. If they were still alive, I would like to
ask it of themselves. I suppose most of them, did they venture to speak
out truly the real ground of their faith and practice, would give it
somewhat in the language of Mr. Walker, in his modest plea for infant
baptism: ‘Where authority from the Scriptures fail, there _the custom of
the Church_ is to be held as law. It doth not follow that our Saviour
gave no precept for the baptizing of infants because no such precept is
particularly expressed in the Scriptures; for our Saviour spake many
things to his disciples concerning the kingdom of God, both before his
passion and after his resurrection, which are not written in the
Scriptures. And who can say but that among those many unwritten sayings
of his, there might be an express precept for infant baptism?’”
“Certainly,” exclaimed Theodosia. “Who can say? And who can say that
there was not among those unwritten sayings of his a complete
description of purgatory? Who can say that there were not express
directions concerning the consecration of monks and nuns? Who can say
that all the mummery of Popery was not detailed in those unwritten
conversations?”
“It seems very evident to me,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “that if He did give
them such an express precept, they were very disobedient to his
requirement; for of all the thousands whom they actually baptized, we do
not read that they ever baptized a single infant; and never in a single
instance so much as intimated to those whom they received and organized
into Churches, that it was their duty and their privilege to bring their
infants in with them. If he gave them such a precept, I can only say,
they must have forgotten all about it, and the Holy Spirit failed to
bring it to their remembrance, as Jesus promised he should do concerning
the things which he had told them.”
“We have nothing at all to do,” said Mr. Courtney, “with traditions on
this or any other point of faith or practice. The custom of the
Churches, except so for as that custom is recorded in the Book, is
nothing to us; and yet I will show that the custom of the Churches was
_not_ to baptize infants for several generations after the apostles. I
say, first, infant baptism was not commanded by Christ, or practiced by
the apostles. It did not exist up to the time when the canon of
Scripture was completed. This I take for granted from the simple fact,
that neither we, nor its most diligent and capable and zealous advocates
have been able to discover any trace of it in the Book.
“I will now prove to you that it did not exist in the century next after
the apostles. What sort of testimony do you require! Will you have the
statements of ecclesiastical historians? Wallafridus Strabo, a Catholic
ecclesiastical historian of the ninth century, says, ‘It should be
observed, that in the primitive times, the grace of baptism was usually
given to those only who were arrived at such maturity of body and mind
that they could understand what were the benefits of baptism; what was
to be confessed and believed; and, finally, what was to be observed by
those who are regenerated in Christ.’
“In fact, there is a canon of a Roman Catholic council, held at Paris in
the year eight hundred and twenty-nine, which says the same thing: ‘In
the beginning of the Holy Church of God, no one was admitted to baptism
unless he had before been instructed in the sacrament of faith and of
baptism, which is proved by the words of St. Paul, Rom. vi. 3, 4.’
“Salmasius, an eminent French Roman Catholic, says, ‘In the first two
centuries no one was baptized except, being instructed in the faith, and
acquainted with the doctrine of Christ, he was able to profess himself a
believer, because of those words, “He that believeth and is baptized.”
Thence the order of catechumens in the Church. Then also it was the
constant custom to give the Lord’s Supper to those catechumens
immediately after their baptism.’
“Ludovicus Vives declares, ‘No one in former times was admitted to the
sacred baptistery except he was of age, understood what the mystical
water meant, desired to be washed in it, and expressed that desire more
than once, of which practice we have yet a faint resemblance in our
baptism of infants; for an infant of only a day or two old is yet asked
[in the Lutheran Church] whether he will be baptized; and this question
is asked three times: in whose name the sponsors answer, He does desire
it.’
“Curcellæus says, ‘The baptism of infants in the first two centuries
after Christ was altogether unknown; but in the third and fourth was
allowed by some few. In the fifth and the following ages it was
generally received. The custom of baptizing infants did not begin before
the third age after Christ was born. In the former ages no trace of it
appears. It was introduced without the command of Christ: and
therefore,’ he says in another place, ‘this rite is observed by us as an
_ancient_ custom, but not as an apostolical tradition.’
“To the same effect speak many of the most learned Europeans who have,
with every possible facility for such investigations, made the customs
of the ancient Church their study.
“Thus the Magdeburg Centuriators concerning the first century say, ‘In
this age they baptized only the adult or aged, whether Jews or Gentiles;
and as to the manner of baptizing, it was by dipping or plunging in the
water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.’ Of the second
century they say, ‘It doth not appear from any approved authors that
there was any mutation or change in respect to baptism from the first
century.’ Of the third they say, ‘As to the rite of baptism in the
Churches of Asia, we have no testimony of any alteration; but concerning
the African Churches, there were great corruptions, in opinion at least,
if not in practice;’ and instance the introduction of the baptism of
infants, which was opposed by Tertullian.
“Dr. Mosheim says of the first century, ‘No _persons_ were admitted to
baptism but such as had been previously instructed into the principal
points of Christianity, and had also given satisfactory proofs of pious
dispositions and upright intentions.’ And of the second century, ‘The
persons to be baptized, after they had repeated the creed confessed, and
renounced their sins, particularly the Devil and his pompous
allurements, were immersed under water, and received into Christ’s
kingdom by a solemn invocation.’
“These authorities are none of them Baptists. They every one belong to
Churches which consist of those baptized in infancy. They all have every
motive to find infant baptism in the first Churches if they can. They
none of them have any conceivable interest in advancing Baptist
sentiments; and one would think the united testimony of such men, upon a
question of ecclesiastical history, would be decisive. I would say, if I
were talking on any other subject, that he who would, without a careful
personal examination of the evidences, venture to assert, in opposition
to all this, that infant baptism existed in the first two centuries, was
either a liar or a fool. But I know the force of religious prejudice,
and will not use such language. I will, on the contrary, suppose that
even you and these good friends around me are not yet convinced I have
given you the simple declarations of very learned and eminent men
(themselves Pedobaptists) who before making those declarations had gone
back into the musty records of antiquity, and made a careful and
laborious search for the real facts. After such examination they
expressly depose that the first and second centuries knew nothing of
infant baptism. I can for my own part see no reason why any man should
ask for further witnesses; but we have others, and I will bring them in,
and they shall testify.
“There are witnesses which show that even to a much later day than this,
infant baptism was the exception, and not, as now in Pedobaptist
Churches, the general rule—I mean the baptistries. The Christians
continued to baptize in streams, and pools, and baths until the middle
of the third century. Justin Martyr says, the candidates ‘Were brought
to a place where there was water.’ And Tertullian says, ‘It made no
difference whether it were the sea, or a pool, or a lake, a river or a
bath.’ But about the middle of the third century, shortly after infant
baptism began to be rather proposed than practiced, the Churches began
to build special places for baptism, especially in the towns and cities.
These baptisteries were outside the churches, and consisted of a large
pool enclosed in a building, and covered by a cupola, or dome. Now, the
_most ancient_ of these baptisteries were arranged at great cost for the
immersion of adults. The pools were large enough and deep enough to swim
in, and by the ancients were sometimes called swimming places. It was
not until after the fifth century that the _font_ was found in the place
of the _pool_, and not until the fourteenth that the basin took the
place of the font. Now these, though silent, are most convincing
witnesses. The first baptisteries were contrived and fitted for the
immersion of adults. The fonts, reduced in size, first to the standard
of youths, and then to that of babes, show the gradual incoming of the
immersion of infants; and the substitution of the basin shows the
introduction of sprinkling.
“But, not to dwell on this, I wish to call your attention to another and
a most conclusive fact. It is this: _All the ancient formularies of the
baptismal service are arranged for adults_; or, at least, for those who
could understand and answer the questions for themselves, In the
earliest liturgies and rituals there is no provision made for infants.
They are no more recognized as the proper subjects of baptism than are
the worshippers of Jupiter.”
“I do not see how you can prove that,” said the Doctor, “unless you can
give us the rituals to examine for ourselves, or show us the testimony
of some competent and credible witness who has examined them.”
“It is in my power to do both at the same time. I have in my trunk a
work, recently published in London, which brings to light much that was
not known before, and clears away the rubbish which defaced and
concealed much that was partly understood concerning the faith and
practice of the first Churches. No one, who will follow the learned
author through all the various paths by which he has come to his final
conclusions, will be disposed to doubt that he has at length discovered
and brought to view the real picture of the ancient Church. I will get
it, and show you what was the practice of that Church concerning
baptism. The author, who is the learned Chevalier Bunsen, is not a
Baptist. He has no object in advancing Baptist sentiments. He is a
Pedobaptist scholar, who, by vast labor and research, has endeavored to
discover beneath the rubbish which false learning had heaped upon it,
the beautiful form of the apostolical Church. Not, indeed, as it existed
in the apostles’ days; not as it was before it had been at all corrupted
by false doctrine or unauthorized practices; but as it was from the
second to the fifth century. This book is called ‘Hippolytus And His
Age.’ It is based upon the discovery of a long-lost manuscript of that
ancient bishop, who lived and wrote in the third century. But besides
this manuscript, Bunsen, the translator of it, has brought together,
from many and various sources, the most reliable and authentic accounts
of the age when Hippolytus lived.”
Mr. Courtney went to his state-room for the book, and presently returned
with the third volume, containing what purports to be the “Church and
House Book of the Ancient Christians.”
“We will not have time,” said he, “to read this book to-day. I will
merely call your attention to the fact recorded on the fifth page, that
those who would be baptized must first be brought to the minister to _be
instructed_. On the eighth page, we learn that the course of instruction
ordinarily continued _three years_, though this depended on their course
of life. After this they were examined, the correctness of their lives
duly certified by those who had brought them for instruction; and after
fasting, bathing, exorcism, etc., they were divested of their clothing
and immersed in water. (Pp. 18–22.) Then, after baptism, they go up
out of the water, are anointed with oil, signed with the sign of the
cross, clothed in white garments, and so return to the Church, where the
Lord’s Supper is at once administered to them.
“We see, therefore, that all these fooleries of exorcism, unction, and
chrism, together with the sign of the cross, which have no scriptural
authority, had come into use _long before_ infant baptism; and if the
usage of the ancient Church can establish any thing not commanded in
Scripture, these things stand on better ground than it does. But,
although they had so far departed from the simplicity of the gospel as
to introduce this senseless mummery, they had not yet learned to make
one a Christian without his own consent. And Mr. Bunsen, on page 179,
makes a very plain summing up of the whole matter. I will read it to
you: ‘The Church adhered rigidly to the principle as constituting the
true import of the baptism ordained by Christ, that no one can be a
member of the communion of saints but by his own free act and deed, his
own solemn vow, made in the presence of the Church. It was with this
understanding that the candidate for baptism was immersed in water and
admitted as a brother upon his confession of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost. It understood baptism, therefore, in the exact sense the
First Epistle of St. Peter, iii. 21, not as being a mere bodily
purification, but as a vow made to God, with a good conscience, through
faith in Jesus Christ. This vow was preceded by a confession of faith,
made in the face of the Church, in which the catechumen expressed that
faith in Christ, and in the sufficiency of the salvation offered by him.
It was a vow to live for the time to come to God, and for his
neighbor—not to the world and for self; a vow of faith in his becoming a
child of God, through the communion with his only-begotten Son in the
Holy Ghost; a vow of the most solemn kind, for life and for death. The
keeping of this pledge was the condition of continuance in the Church.
Its infringement entailed repentance or excommunication. All Church
discipline was based upon this voluntary pledge, and the responsibility
thereby self-imposed. How could such a vow be received without
examination? How could such examination be passed without instruction
and observation?
“‘As a general rule, the ancient Church fixed three years as the period
for this preparation; supposing the candidate, whether a heathen or a
Jew, to be competent to receive it. With Christian children the
condition was the same, except that the term of probation was curtailed
according to circumstances. _Pedobaptism, in the more modern sense,
meaning thereby baptism of new-born infants, with the vicarious promises
of parents or other sponsors, WAS UTTERLY UNKNOWN TO THE EARLY CHURCH,_
not only down to the end of the second, but indeed to the middle of the
third century. We shall show, in a subsequent page, how this practice
originated in the baptism of children of a more advanced age.’”
Mr. Courtney then turned to page 186, and read,
“‘THE EXAMINATION.—In the third and last year of the preparation, the
catechumens were called _competentes_, or candidates, as they had been
called hearers in the second. Before they were set apart from the rest,
in immediate preparation for their baptism, an _examination_ was made as
to their life and conduct during the period of probation.… It is
unnecessary to say that this examination was a _public_ one. The
_congregation_ [the ekklesia] was, and continued to be, the supreme
judge.… If the candidates passed this ordeal, they were first bathed and
pronounced personally clean. They fasted on Friday, and met together
solemnly on Saturday. Thereupon they were commanded to pray. They knelt
down and received the bishop’s blessing, who exorcised every unclean
spirit.… The bishop breathed upon each of them, as the Lord did upon his
disciples, and then _sealed_ them (as the text-book expresses) on the
forehead, ears, and lips—doubtless with the sign of the cross. At the
dawn of Sunday, the baptismal font was filled, accompanied by a
blessing, which corresponds exactly with the prayers [which they] used
in consecrating the elements used for the Lord’s Supper. The deacons
assisted the men, and the deaconesses the women, to take off their
ornaments and put on the baptismal dress. They were then presented to
one of the presbyters, who called solemnly on each of them to renounce
Satan and all his services and all his works.… After this solemn
renunciation he was anointed by the presbyter with the oil of exorcism.…
The deacon and deaconess accompanied the neophytes into the water, and
made each of them, in turn, repeat after them a confession of faith in
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or respond to it with the words, I
believe.… The confession was three times repeated, being uttered before
each of the three immersions.… After that followed the true baptismal
unction with the precious oil, the so-called chrisma.… The ceremony
concluded with the Christian kiss.… After this, the baptized persons
were clothed in white and conducted into the church.’ When, after
repeating the Lord’s prayer in the name of the whole congregation, to
show that each one was now a priest, ‘They partook of the Lord’s Supper,
in which milk and honey were set before them, as well as bread and wine,
doubtless as symbols of their being, as it were, newly born.’
“Now, what I say,” continued Mr. Courtney, “is this: however far all
this may be from the practice of Christ and the apostles, it is utterly
inconsistent with the idea that those who were the subjects of baptism
could be little infants or any way incapable of witnessing a good
profession. And if we read in this age or the next of the baptism of
_children_, we may be sure that they are not _little babes_, but such as
could be instructed, could believe and make profession of their faith.”
“But Bunsen promised to tell us, if I heard you rightly,” said
Theodosia, “how it was that children at a later day came to be received.
Can you find us that place?”
“It follows directly what we have been looking at. Here, on the 191st
page, is the beginning of what he says on this point: ‘Baptism is indeed
called a new birth—_regeneration_. But in what sense? Was it a sort of
magical conversion of the curse into a blessing, effected now in the
case of the infants by the act of sprinkling? Was it a forgiving of sins
not intended to be brought back to the recollection of the parents or
the sponsors who were present, but to be applied to the infant itself?
“‘The ancient Church knew no more than do the Gospels and the apostles
of such superstition, which contains less spirituality than many of the
_lustrations_ of the old world, and not much more than the _taurobolia_
and _criobolia_, mysteries of the last stages of heathenism, purporting
to purify the neophyte by the blood of victims. On the contrary, she
bears authentic testimony in all her ordinances against this corruption
and misunderstanding, as in other cases the origin was innocent; and I
think that we are at this moment better able than either the defenders
or the opponents of infant baptism have hitherto been, to tell how it
originated. A passage in our Alexandrian Church-book gives the true
explanation of the assertion of Origen, himself an Alexandrian, that the
baptism of children was an apostolic tradition. And it removes the
origin of infant baptism from Tertullian and Hippolytus to the end of
our present period; _Cyprian_ being the _first_ Father who, _impelled by
a fanatical enthusiasm, and assisted by a bad interpretation of the Old
Testament, established it as a principle_.… The difference between the
ante-Nicene and the later Church was essentially this: the later Church,
with the exception of converts, only baptized new-born infants, and she
did so on principle. The _ancient_ Church, as a general rule, baptized
adults, and only after they had gone through the course of instruction;
and as the exception, only Christian children who had not yet arrived at
years of maturity, _but never infants_.… Cyprian, and some other African
bishops, his contemporaries, at the close of the third century were the
first who viewed baptism in the light of a washing away of the universal
sinfulness of human nature, and connected this idea with that ordinance
of the Old Testament, circumcision.’ And he goes on to show, that it was
on this ground that it was applied to babes, to wash away their
hereditary or original sin. Hence the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration.
“Now, not only Bunsen, but all these writers whom I have quoted as
authorities, are, if not opponents of the Baptists, all members of
Pedobaptist Churches, and have every inducement to make the best showing
that they can for the practice of their own communion. They are
therefore most unexceptionable witnesses so far as they may be suspected
of any secret bias to one side or the other of this controversy. They
are certainly _competent_ to testify, having made the customs of the
ancient Church their special study; and they testify most unmistakably
that what I said was true; namely, that baptism which Christ commanded
to be given only to the believing penitent, that is, to him who gave
evidence of a renewal of his nature by the obedience of faith, was first
given to the youth upon the repetition of a form of words which they had
_learned_ as catechumens; and at length to those who could not say the
words, but whose parents or others answered for them; and now, as we
have often seen, it is given to little crying babes who do not know
their right hand from their left. We have seen _when_ infant baptism was
introduced, _why_ it was introduced, and _how_ it was introduced;[7] and
I trust you are ready now to go on with our investigation of the claims
of the English or Episcopal Church.”
“I am quite ready,” said the Doctor. “I shall not be troubled any more
with doubts about the time of the introduction of infant baptism. I used
to think that Dr. Barlow, an eminent Episcopalian, and Professor in the
University at Oxford, England, spoke very strangely for one who belonged
to a Pedobaptist Church; but I see now, that as a diligent student of
antiquity, and a candid man, he could not have spoken otherwise.”
“What did he say, sir?” asked Theodosia.
“It was in a letter of his, published in England, in which he says, ‘I
do believe and know that there is neither precept nor example in
Scripture for infant baptism, nor any just evidence for it for above two
hundred years after Christ; that Tertullian condemns it as an
unwarrantable custom, and Nazianzen, a good while after him, dislikes it
too. Sure I am, that in the primitive times they were first CATECHUMENI,
then _Illuminati_, or BAPTIZATI; and that not only Pagans, and the
children of Pagans converted, but children of Christian parents. The
truth is, I do believe Pedobaptism, how or by whom I know not, came into
the world in the second century, and in the third and fourth began to be
practiced, though not generally defended as lawful, from the text John
iii. 5, grossly misunderstood; and upon the like gross mistake of John
vi. 63, they did for many centuries, both in the Greek and Latin
Churches, communicate infants, and give them the Lord’s Supper; and I do
confess they might do both as well as either.’”
“The whole history is told,” said Mr. Courtney, “in a few words by the
learned Johannes Bohemius, who wrote in the twelfth century. ‘In times
past,’ he says, ‘the custom was, to administer baptism only to those who
had been instructed in the faith, and seven times in the week before
Easter and Pentecost catechized. But _afterwards_, when it was thought
and adjudged needful to eternal life to be baptized, it was ordained
that _new-born children_ should be baptized, and godfathers were
appointed, who should make confession and renounce the Devil on their
behalf.’ But enough of this—perhaps too much, as it has turned our minds
away, for the time being, from the main object of our conversation. Let
us now proceed to look for our scriptural marks of a true Church of
Christ in the English Episcopal Church. Let us have the tablet, Mrs.
Percy. What is the first mark?”
“She must consist only of professed believers in Christ.”
“Is this true of the English Church? Does not her membership embrace the
little children who _cannot_ believe, and thousands who were made
nominal Christians in their infancy, and who make no pretension to
genuine piety? Does it not embrace the gamblers and horse-racers, the
profane, the lewd and debauched? Does it not, so far us they can be
brought into it, embrace the _whole_ population, good, bad, and
indifferent, of the great English _nation_? It is the custom, sanctioned
by law, that every infant must be baptized. By baptism it is made a
member of the Church. The confirmation which follows, when it has come
to the age of childhood, and is able, though not very intelligently, to
answer for itself, is not the act of admission: it only _confirms_ what
was already done. The liturgy regards the child as regenerated and made
a member of Christ’s body by the _act of baptism_. This is the door of
entrance into the Church; and, consequently, all who are baptized by her
authority are members of her communion.”
“But, my dear sir,” asked the Doctor, “is not the confirmation necessary
to _complete_ and ratify the act of admission? I do not think any are
_recognized_ and _treated as Church members_, who do not at confirmation
make a sort of profession of their faith. They must say the catechism
and repeat the _creed_ before they can be entitled to the privileges of
full communion.”
“Let it be so; but is this an intelligent and personal profession of
that _saving faith_ in Christ which is required by the Scripture? Every
one who has any familiarity with this confirmation ceremony, knows that
the repetition of the catechism and creed is, in most cases, a mere
formal saying over of the words. It means nothing more than that the
child has been so far instructed that he has committed it to memory, and
can say it over as he would a lesson in geography, or a rule in
arithmetic. He is admitted to communion, not because he gives to the
Church or to the bishop any evidence at all _that he is a penitent
believer_ in the Lord Jesus for the salvation of his soul, but because
he gives evidence that he has intellect enough to learn the catechism,
and memorize the creed. This is enough, and this is all. If it sometimes
happens that the child has really been converted, and in his mind and
heart attaches some spiritual meaning to the words repeated, this is the
exception and not the rule. It is not required—it is not expected; and
the membership exists, and is just as readily confirmed, without as with
it. That there are some, nay, many, very good and pious people in the
English Church, I will not deny. They have truly repented of their sins,
and have heartily trusted in Christ as their Saviour. They have been
born again, and made new creatures in Christ Jesus. But at the same time
it is notorious that a majority of those she counts as members, make no
pretensions to any other Christianity than that which they received by
the forms of the Church; and to the efficacy of these forms they are
trusting for salvation. If a profession made not _by_ them, but _for_
them, in infancy, and by them acknowledged and ratified in early
childhood, not heartily, and with a full understanding of its import,
but in words only, and as a regular matter of form—a mere ceremony which
they read in a book, and which is required and expected to be observed
at a certain age, and that whether there is any evidence of piety or
not—if this is a genuine scriptural profession of faith in Christ, then
they have made such profession; if not, then Mr. Percy must make the
space opposite this mark in his tablet black, as he did for Rome.”
“It certainly cannot be left white,” said Mr. Percy; “and yet, when I
see so many pious believers in Jesus among their members, I do not like
to make it entirely black. Suppose we shade it, and leave it neither
white nor black?
“Do not forget the _true point_ of our inquiry,” replied Mr Courtney.
“It is not whether she has believers _among her members_—Rome has had
many thousands—but whether a genuine and scriptural profession of faith
is, according to her acknowledged standards, _a prerequisite for
membership_; or whether she admits them _without_ such profession, and,
in fact, before they are competent either to have or to profess a
sincere and personal faith in the Redeemer.
“Now, if you have any sort of doubt that _little infants_ are by
_baptism_ made members of this Church, you can easily dispel it by
turning to the baptismal service in her liturgy: ‘The minister,’ you may
read there, ‘shall take the child in his arms, and, after naming it,
shall dip it discreetly in the water, or shall pour upon it, saying, “I
baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, Amen.” Then the minister shall say, “_We receive this child into
the congregation of Christ’s flock_, and do sign him with the sign of
the cross,”’ etc. Now, is this congregation of Christ’s flock the
Episcopal Church? Certainly; for the minister is to go on and say,
‘Seeing now, dearly beloved, that this child is regenerate and grafted
into the _body of Christ’s Church_, let us give thanks,’ etc. But if
this leave any doubt, read on: ‘Then shall the minister say, “We yield
thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to
regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit; receive him for thy own
child by adoption, and _incorporate him into thy holy Church_.”’ If the
infant, therefore, is not a real Church member, the minister is
instructed to say what is not true.
See also the form of a certificate of baptism, under the head of
‘Private Baptism of Children:’ ‘I certify you that in this case all is
well done, and according to due order, concerning the baptizing of this
child, _who is now_, BY BAPTISM, _incorporated into the Christian
Church_.’
“And now, to assure yourself that it is not _faith_ or penitence that
qualifies for confirmation, and, consequently, for all the privileges of
full communicants, turn to the note at the end of the little catechism,
before the ‘Order of Confirmation,’ and you may read as follows:
“‘So soon as children are come to a competent _age_, and _can say the
creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the ten commandments_, and can answer to
the other questions of this short catechism, _they shall be brought to
the bishop for confirmation_.’
“The English Church, and that of Rome, stand on the same ground. They
both admit infants to Church-member ship by baptism; and both pretend
that they are by this baptism regenerated and made members of Christ. It
is _by baptism_ in both that men are born again; and this is given, not
on any evidence of faith in them, but solely on the promise of the
sponsors, or godfathers.
“Give us the second mark, if you please, Mrs. Percy.”
“It is that the members must have been _baptized_ upon profession of
their faith.”
“The question for us, then, is whether the English Church has in
herself, and confers upon her members, genuine Scripture baptism? We
Baptists will say, of course, that she has not; for we do not recognize
the _baptism of infants_ as authorized by Scripture; nor do we admit
that sprinkling, or pouring, which is now generally practiced in the
Episcopal Church, is baptism at all. But as we have not time to go over
the facts and arguments on which we have based our opinions, it will be
enough for us to show, by the testimony of the _Episcopalians
themselves_, that they _have changed_ Christ’s ordinance, both in the
act and the subjects of it; and, consequently, that what they now
perform as baptism is, according _to their own showing_, NOT the baptism
of the Scriptures, but a ceremony which was substituted for it by mere
human authority.
“But, first, I would remark, that when we were examining the record upon
this point, we ascertained that those who came into the apostolic
Churches _believed_, and were _then_ baptized. They were not first
baptized, and left to find their faith in after life. Now, as in this
Church the pretended baptism is given before there is or can be any
faith, this fact alone vitiates the whole, and renders it no true
scriptural baptism. And, therefore, if the Church of England had
continued to practice _immersion_, as the Greek Church has done, it
would not have been true baptism when applied to little babes. But they
have changed the _act_ as well as the subjects. This I will prove to you
by their own plain and express declarations. Hear what the learned Dr.
Wall says, in his famous History of Infant Baptism, page 462, speaking
of the primitive Christians: ‘Their general and ordinary way was to
baptize by immersion, or dipping the person, whether it were an infant
or a grown man or woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear, by
an infinite number of passages, that one cannot but pity the weak
endeavors of such Pedobaptists as would maintain the negative of it.… It
is a great want of prudence, as well as of honesty, to refuse to grant
to an adversary what is certainly true and may be proved so. It creates
a jealousy of all the rest that one says.… It is plain that the ordinary
and general practice of St. John, the apostles, and primitive Church,
was to baptize by putting the person into the water, or causing him to
go into the water. Neither do I know of any _Protestant_ who has denied
it.’
“Hear what Bishop Nicholson says:
“‘The sacrament of baptism was anciently administered by plunging into
the water, in the western as well as the eastern part of the Church.’
“So _Archbishop Secker_: ‘Burying, as it were the person baptized in the
water, and raising him out again, without question was anciently the
more usual method.’
“So _Bishop Davenant_: ‘In the ancient Church, they did not merely
sprinkle, but immersed those whom they baptized.’
“And _Bishop Patrick_: ‘They [the primitive Christians] put off their
old clothes and stripped themselves of their garments; then they were
immersed all over and buried in the water.’
“In accordance with this, Mr. Stackhouse declares that ‘Several authors
have shown that we nowhere read in Scripture of any one being baptized
but by immersion; and from the acts of ancient councils and ancient
rituals, have proved that this manner of baptizing continued (as much as
possible) to be used for thirteen hundred years after Christ. But it is
much to be questioned whether the prevalence of custom and the
over-fondness of parents will, in these cold countries, ever suffer it
to be restored.’
“So _Bishop Taylor_ says, expressly, ‘The custom of the ancient Church
was not sprinkling, but immersion, in pursuance of the meaning of the
word in the commandment, and the example of our blessed Saviour.’
“And _Archbishop Tillotson_ says, that ‘Anciently, those that were
baptized put off their garments, which signified the putting off the
body of sin, and were immersed and buried in the water, to represent
their death to sin; and then did rise up again out of the water, to
signify their entrance upon a new life.’
“Now, if the original practice was immersion, as these doctors, and
bishops, and archbishops declare, and sprinkling has now come in its
place, it is self-evident that, by some authority, the ordinance of
Christ has been displaced, and another action substituted for that which
he enjoined. But, lest any one may doubt the authority of these
dignitaries of the Church—for some people will, now-a-days, doubt almost
any thing which goes to show that sprinkling was not the baptism
enjoined by Christ and practiced by the apostolic Churches—I will show
you that the English Church herself practiced immersion, and immersion
only, until comparatively a very recent day In a catechism, published in
the name of King Edward VI., shortly after the separation of the English
from the Church of Rome, are the following question and answer:
“‘MASTER. Tell me, my sonde, how these two sacraments be ministered:
baptisme and that whyche Paule caleth the Supper of the Lord?
“‘SCHOLAR. Hym that beleueth in Christ, professeth the articles of the
Christian religion, and mindeth to be baptized (I speake now of thè that
be growè to ripe yeres of discretion: sith for the yòg babes, theyr
parentes’ or the Church’s professiò sufficeth) the minister _dyppeth_
in, or washeth with pure, clean water only, in the name of the Father,
and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghost,’ etc.
“In a sermon by Archbishop Cranmer, a little before this time, the
following passage occurs: ‘What greater shame can there be, than a man
who professeth himself to be a Christian man because he is baptized; and
yet he knoweth not what baptism is, nor what strength the same hath, nor
what the _dypping_ in the water doth betoken.… Baptism, and the _dypping
in the water_, doth betoken that the old Adam, with all his synne and
evel lusts, ought to be _drowned_ and killed by daily contrition and
repentance.’
“In like manner William Tyndale speaks of baptism: ‘The _plungyǹge_ into
the water sygnifieth that we dye and are buried with Christ, as
concernynge the old life of sinne, which is Adam; and the _pullynge out
agayne_ signifieth that we _ryse_ agayne with Christ in a new
lyfe.’—(_Robison_, p. 430.)
“But why go to the early days of the English Church, when the very words
of her Liturgy, even in modern times, expressly require dipping, except
in case the subject be too feeble to endure it. Archbishop Usher says,
‘Some there are that stand strictly for the particular action of diving
or dipping the baptized under water, as the only action which the
institution of the sacrament will bear; _and our Church allows no other_
except in case of the child’s weakness; and there is expressed in our
Saviour’s baptism both the descending into the water and the raising
up.’ So the famous George Whitefield says, ‘It is certain, in the words
of our text, (Rom. vi. 3, 4,) there is an allusion to the manner of
baptism, which was by immersion, _which our own Church allows, and
insists upon it_ that children should be immersed in water, unless those
that bring the children to be baptized assure the minister that they
cannot bear plunging.’ Thus Mr. Wesley says on one occasion that he
baptized a certain individual by immersion, according to the custom of
the first Church and the Church of England. And on another occasion
says, he refused to baptize a child unless it could be done by
immersion, according to the Book of Common Prayer, or unless the parents
would certify it to be weakly.
“It is evident, therefore, that immersion was not merely the ordinance
established by Christ, and practiced by the first Churches, but it was
recognized and practiced by the Church of England as her ordinary
baptism, even towards the close of the last century. And Dr. Whitby, of
that Church, says expressly, that ‘Immersion was observed by all
Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our Church, (the
Episcopal;) and as the _change of it into sprinkling_ was made without
any allowance from the Author of the institution, or any license from
any council of the Church, it were to be wished that this custom might
be again of general use, etc.’—Now if these things be so, is it not as
evident as any thing can be, they just to that extent to which they have
left off immersion, they have ceased to baptize? and that, according to
the confessions and declarations which they themselves have made? They
lack, therefore, the second mark of a true Church, which we discovered
in the Word.
“Let us now look for the third: Is it a local congregation or is it,
like the Roman Church, a centralized hierarchy? We need spend no time to
determine this. The structure and constitutions of the two
establishments are very similar, if not identical, except that one
recognizes the sovereign of England as its visible head, and the other
the Pope of Rome. No local congregation of the English Church is of
itself an independent church. It only makes a _part_ of the great
confederacy called THE CHURCH; and as our Scripture Churches were each
one _independent_, and did not make a part of any such confederacy, but
was complete within itself, so we may know from this circumstance alone
that this is not the scriptural Church.
“Our next mark will demand a little more particular attention. Does the
Church of England take Christ _alone_ for her King and Lawgiver? or does
she recognize the authority of the King or Queen and Parliament to
legislate for her in matters pertaining to religion? I speak now of the
Episcopal Church _in England_, for that in this country stands upon
somewhat different ground. The English Church grew out of the Roman
Catholic, as we shall see hereafter, in the time of Henry the Eighth;
and one of those enactments by which it was established, declares that
‘Archbishops and bishops, archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical persons,
have no manner of jurisdiction ecclesiastical, but by and under the
King’s majesty, the only undoubted Head of the Church of England, to
whom by the Holy Scripture power and authority is given to hear and
determine all manner of causes whatsoever, and to correct all sin and
vice whatsoever.’
“In the time of King Edward VI., it was further enacted, that ‘Whosoever
should affirm by open preaching, express words or sayings, that the King
is _not_, or that any other is the Supreme Head of the Church of
England, should for the first offence forfeit goods and chattels, with
imprisonment at the king’s will, for the second forfeit profit of lands;
and for the third suffer as in cases of high treason.’ It was under such
laws as these that the Church of England was organized.
“I cannot give you a better account of the results than has been given
by Macaulay, himself a Churchman, in his History of England. ‘Henry the
Eighth,’ he says, (p. 38, vol. i.) ‘attempted to constitute an Anglican
Church differing from the Roman Catholic Church on the point of
supremacy, and on that point alone. His success in this attempt was
extraordinary. The force of his character, the singularly favorable
situation in which he stood with respect to foreign powers, the immense
wealth which the spoliation of the abbeys placed at his disposal, and
the support of that class which still halted between two opinions,
enabled him to bid defiance to both the extreme parties, to burn as
heretics those who avowed the tenets of Luther, and to hang as traitors
those who owned the authority of the Pope. But Henry’s system died with
him.… The ministers who held the royal prerogative in trust for his
infant son, could not venture to persist in so hazardous a policy, nor
could Elizabeth venture to return to it. It was necessary to make a
choice. The government must either submit to Rome, or obtain the aid of
the Protestants. The government and the Protestants had only one thing
in common—hatred of the Papal power.… But as the government needed the
support of the Protestants, so the Protestants needed the protection of
the government. Much was therefore given up on both sides. A union was
effected, and the fruit of that union was the Church of England.… To
this day the constitution, the doctrines, and the services of the Church
retain the visible marks of the compromise from which she sprung.…
Nothing, however, so strongly distinguished the Church of England from
other Churches, as the relation in which she stood to the monarchy. _The
King was her Head_.… What Henry and his favorite counsellors meant by
the supremacy was certainly nothing less than the whole power of the
keys. The king was to be the Pope of his kingdom, the vicar of God, the
expositor of Catholic verity, the channel of sacramental graces.… The
king (such was the opinion of Cranmer given in the plainest words)
might, by authority derived from God, make a priest, and the priest so
made needed no ordination whatever.… These high pretensions gave scandal
to Protestants as well as Catholics; and the scandal was greatly
increased when the supremacy which Mary had resigned back to the Pope,
was again annexed to the _Crown_ on the accession of Elizabeth. It
seemed monstrous that a _woman_ should be the chief bishop of a Church
in which an apostle had forbidden her even to let her voice be heard.…
When the Anglican Confession of Faith was revised in her reign, the
supremacy was explained in a manner somewhat different from that which
had been fashionable in the Court of Henry the Eighth.… The queen,
however, still had over the Church a visitorial power of vast and
undefined extent. She was intrusted by parliament with the office of
restraining and punishing heresy, and every sort of ecclesiastical
abuse;’ (so all the _discipline_ of its membership was placed in the
hands of the Crown;) ‘and was permitted to delegate her authority to
commissioners. The bishops were little more than her ministers. Rather
than grant to the civil magistrate the absolute power of nominating
spiritual pastors, the Church of Rome, in the eleventh century, set all
Europe on fire; rather than grant to the civil magistrate the absolute
power of nominating spiritual pastors, the ministers of the Church of
Scotland, in our own time, resigned their livings by hundreds. The
Church of England had no such scruples. By the royal authority alone,
her prelates were appointed. By the royal authority alone, her
convocations were summoned, regulated, prorogued, and dissolved. Without
the royal sanction her canons had no force. One of the articles of her
faith was that, without the royal consent, no ecclesiastical council
could lawfully assemble. From all her judicatures an appeal lay in the
last resort to the sovereign, even when the question was whether an
opinion was heretical, or whether the administration of a sacrament had
been valid.’
“Such is the account which this learned son of the Church gives of her
constitution. And if such a Church has Christ _alone_ for her King and
Lawgiver, there is no means of subjecting a Church to any secular or
religious power. Loot at it a moment. No one can be a minister within
her borders who has not been ordained by a _prelate_. Yet the prelate is
the absolute creature of the crown. The crown, therefore, by making the
prelate, makes the whole ministry of the Church. The whole _discipline_
of the Church is in the crown. The queen says, by her commissioners, who
are to be admitted as Church-members, and who excluded; who retained and
who expelled; who shall be censured and who commended. And, in case even
these, her own commissioners, do not decide to please her, there is, in
the last resort, an appeal to herself. So that the queen has power to
decide who shall and who shall not be members of the Church. The queen
decides what is gospel truth, and what is heretical; what must be
believed and what must be practiced. For, without the royal consent, the
decisions of the Church can have no force.”
“That seems all very true,” replied the Doctor. “But you will recollect
that this is the _mere theory_ of the Church, under which she went into
operation in the troublous times that gave her birth. It does not follow
that the powers of the queen are _now_ what they were then; that Queen
Victoria has the same ecclesiastical prerogatives which belonged to
Queen Elizabeth.”
“What if she has _not_?” replied Mr. Courtney. “The Church which _once_
gave up her sovereignty, and consented to be subject in matters of
religion to another lord than Christ, did, by that act, cease to be a
Church of Christ, and lose the authority to act as his executive. But
your surmise has no foundation in truth. This is not merely the ancient
theory but the modern practice. The authority of the crown determines,
to-day, the forms of prayer, the ritual of baptism, the times of
worship, and all else pertaining to the English Church, as truly as it
did in the days of Elizabeth. When Mr. Seabury went to England to
procure ordination as a bishop, there was no Church or council of
Churches, no bishop or house of bishops, that dared to confer ordination
on him, or _could_, according to the law of the Church, have conferred
it, until an _act_ of parliament had been passed, and received the royal
signature, _permitting_ it to be done. Not only Seabury, but all the
bishops of America, hold their commission by virtue of a _special_ act
of parliament; and not only they, but all who shall be by them ordained
to the ministry, are by that act expressly prohibited from exercising
their ministry in England.
“But we have been speaking of the Church of England as a whole; of the
hierarchy, which comprises all the local societies in one great body.
The Churches of Christ, however, we have before determined, are the
_local_ societies; and the true question before us is simply whether
each one of the local organizations, commonly called Episcopal Churches,
is subject, in matters belonging to religion, to any lord but Christ. If
you look at it in this light, you will see that an Episcopal Church is
subject to the priest; it is subject to the bishop; it is subject to
councils; and in fact, it has _no_ voice in its own government. It is
ruled from without, and has nothing to do but inquire the decrees of its
lords and humbly to obey them. If it refuse to carry into execution
their enactments, it cannot continue an Episcopal Church.”
“But tell me,” asked Theodosia, “does the Episcopal Church in this
country stand on the same ground?”
“It _claims_ to be a part of the same Church. So far as practicable, it
is constituted on the same plan. It is not, however, dependent on the
will of the queen or the acts of parliament, but go the decrees of its
general councils. If however, the _mother_, in England, was not a true
Church when she gave it birth, _it_ cannot be a true Church; for it has
nothing which it did not receive from her. Moreover, each local society
in America is just as much _subject_ to its priest and bishop, and just
as much bound by the ecclesiastical laws concocted for it and imposed
upon it, as any local English Church.”
“Let us pass on,” said the Doctor. “I am anxious to see the end. What
was our next mark?”
“It was,” said Mr. Percy, “that its members must have been made such by
their own voluntary act; and we have seen already that the members of
this Church were made such in infancy, without their own knowledge or
consent.”
“Let us then go on to the next.”
“That,” said Mr. Percy, “has regard to her faith. Does she hold the
fundamental doctrines of the gospel? It is well known that both in this
country and in England she is divided into two great parties; one
trusting as much as Rome herself to the efficacy of sacraments, and
forms, and works; and the other recognizing salvation by Jesus only. I
am disposed to mark her half black, therefore, to designate the High
Church, or sacramental party; and half white, to designate the other, or
Evangelical party.”
It may have been observed by the attentive reader that neither the
Episcopal bishop nor the Methodist preacher have taken any part in this
morning’s discussion. The truth is, they were not present; and the
interest of the passengers had in a great degree subsided; so that our
little company had the conversation all to themselves. They had been
themselves so much engaged that they had scarcely observed the absence
of their friendly adversaries, until they came to the seventh of those
marks, which they had gathered out of the Book, and by which a true
Church might be known.
But when the question was asked whether this Church began with Christ,
and had continued ever since, they very naturally looked round for the
Bishop, at whose instigation it had been added to the tablet; and, on
finding that he was not present, they concluded to postpone their
investigations until another day.
THE EIGHTH DAY’S TRAVEL.
WHEN our little company assembled the next morning, they learned that
they were within an hour’s sail of Nashville They had therefore no time
to talk, but each one began to make preparation to leave the boat. Mr.
Courtney made inquiry for the Episcopal bishop and the Methodist
minister, that he might bid them a kind adieu; but learned that they had
taken another boat, or gone ashore at the mouth of the Cumberland. The
Doctor insisted that Theodosia, Mr. Percy, and Mr. Courtney, should make
his house their home for a few days, at least, until they should have
finished this discussion. And in some three hours after they had landed,
they were sitting round a table in Doctor Thinkwell’s dining room.
After dinner, when the Doctor had finished his cigar, he came into the
parlor, where his guests were talking, and exclaimed, “Come, Mr.
Courtney, we have no time to lose: I am anxious to have this question,
what is the Church, or rather, _which_ is the Church, settled as soon as
possible. Let us resume our conversations here, and progress to a
conclusion; I am impatient to see the end. Perhaps Mrs. Percy will come
with us into the library, where we will be less liable to interruption,
and have readier access to such books as we may wish to consult.”
The arrangements were made at once, and the investigation resumed where
it was left off upon the boat.
“We were, I think,” said the Doctor, “engaged in applying our tests, or
marks, to the English Episcopal Church and had progressed as far as the
seventh sign. We had just inquired whether the English Church had been
established by Christ, and had continued from his day until now?”
“It surely needs no time to answer that,” said Mr. Percy, “after what we
have already seen to be the testimony of Macaulay, the historian; for he
says expressly, that ‘it was the result of a compromise between the
government on the one hand and the Protestants on the other.’ It cannot
date farther back than King Henry VIII.”
“But I presume you are aware, Mr. Percy,” replied the Doctor, “that some
of our clergy have contended that the true Anglican Church began in the
time of the apostles, and has continued ever since, independent of Rome,
except so for as it was for a time brought into unwilling subjection,
previous to the Reformation. It is said that Christianity was brought
into the island by Paul, and thousands of Churches existed both in
England and Wales before the Saxon conquest; and when the Saxons
re-introduced idolatry, Christianity retired to the fastnesses of the
forests and mountains; and it was through these, and not through Rome,
that our descent has come.”
“I suppose,” replied Mr. Percy, “that it is much easier to claim and
contend for such a pedigree than to establish it. But let us see the
proofs. We know what the English Episcopal Church is now. The question
is, When did it become what it now is? And who made it such? Macaulay
and other secular historians say with ope voice, it was Henry the Eighth
and his successors on the throne of England. But theologians who see
that this would be fatal to their claims to be a scriptural Church,
declare that history is mistaken. Let us then examine for ourselves. It
is a _hierarchy_ which has for its _head_ the person who wears the
English crown. This is its peculiar feature. Take this away, and it is
not the English Episcopal Church. It has been, in this respect, what it
is now, ever since Henry the Eighth. What was it before that time? Was
it not the _same_ people, the _same_ priests, the _same_ bishops, and
the _same_ archbishops which then began to recognize King Henry as the
head of the Church, who had previous to that time recognized the _Pope_
as their sovereign lord in all matters of religion? Was it not that part
of the Church of Rome which was in England which then, by the decree of
the king and his parliament, was made the Church of England? They must
be simpletons indeed who believe that the Church of King Henry, and his
successors in the headship, was the ancient English Church which Austin,
about the year six hundred, sought in vain to persuade to ‘give baptism
to their children.’ Did King Henry call _those_ people from their
hiding-places in the mountains of Wales, and seek to _them_ for the
ordination and ordinances of Christ which Rome, as Antichrist, could not
confer? No conscientious historian will dare to intimate any such thing.
Those who make such statements make them to deceive. They know that he
did nothing of the sort. They know that if the members and ministers of
that old Church were yet in being, (and I do not question that they
were,) King Henry had no use for them. No more did his successors. Both
he and they continued to _hang_ them, and _drown_ them, and _burn_ them,
(as the Popes had done before,) even down to the time when Cromwell
subverted his throne. That ancient Church, if I have read its history
rightly, was a _Baptist_ Church; or at least it was a Church that did
not baptize except upon a profession of faith, and would not submit to
be controlled in matters of religion by any lord but Christ.”
“It is a matter of no consequence at all to our present argument,” said
Mr. Courtney, “whether the modern Church of England came out of Rome, or
out of some ancient Church planted upon her native soil by Paul himself;
for whatever her _origin_ might have been, she could not at any time
have been _what she is now_, and at the same time a true Church of
Christ. Whenever she became a hierarchy, and owned the rule of _any_
lord but Christ, whether that lord were the Pope of Rome, the King of
England, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, is of no consequence at all;
from that moment she ceased to be the true Church of Jesus Christ; for
_his_ Church was, and must continue to be, an _independent local
organization_, not a confederacy; not a hierarchy; not any great
ecclesiastical establishment. Christ established _no such Church_. The
apostles established _no such Church_, either in England or anywhere
else. If Paul built up a Church in England, (of which there is no proof
but loose tradition,) it was like the other Churches which he founded,
an independent local society; and if he established more than one, as he
did in Greece, then _each one_ was independent. And if any one usurped
the power over others, or if any one yielded subjection to any other,
whether that at Rome, or at Bangor, it ceased from that time forth to be
a Church of Christ; for Christ was then no longer its _only King and
Lawgiver_. Now, that the English Church _has ceased some time or other_
to be the independent body which Christ enjoined, is certain; and it
will not at all affect our argument whether she did so at, before, or
since the time of Henry the Eighth.”
“But yet,” said Theodosia, “it would be very interesting to know the
history of the Churches which were first established in England, and
which must have been true Churches, if they dated near the times of the
apostles. It may be they yet exist as independent bodies, and have
_always_ refused subjection alike to the Pope of Rome and the hierarchy
of which the crown has now become the head.”
“Your conjecture is but the truth of their history, Mrs. Percy. They
_do_ yet exist. They _have_ resisted, even unto death, all efforts to
subject them to the Pope of Rome, or to the hierarchy of England. Their
history was written in the blood of their martyrs, shed by those who, in
former days, controlled the records and wielded the power of the
country, and who were greatly desirous that it should be blotted out. We
must therefore trace them mainly now in those brief allusions to their
existence which the narration of other events made needful, and in the
decrees which were designed for their destruction. Yet we will find no
insuperable difficulty in tracing a true and pure Church of Christ in
England, or at least in Wales, from the time that Christianity was first
established on the island. This I trust we will be permitted to do
before we close this investigation; but let us now not wander from the
matter before us. This Church you may be sure was not the modern Church
of England. That began with Henry the Eighth, according to the testimony
of Macaulay and others of its own historians. But we can still trace the
persecuted followers of Jesus by the blood of their martyrs, until the
Reformation, and long after it. The first and the last whose blood was
shed for their religion in England, were Baptists. They were never
amalgamated with and never subjected to the hierarchy of the Pope, or of
the King; and to this day maintain their ancient baptism, and their
independent organization in the mountains of Wales, whence many have
come, both ministers and members, to our own beloved land, and have
aided us to build up Churches like their own, after the model at
Jerusalem. But we will be obliged to go back to this subject. Let us now
hasten on. What is your next mark, Mrs. Percy?”
“It is, that _No true Church can be a persecuting Church_.”
“Then surely the English Church cannot be true; for though she has not
been, like Rome, at all times a perpetual and relentless persecutor, yet
her hands are red with the blood of more than one of the followers of
Jesus. Henry the Eighth laid the very foundation of the Church in blood.
He, as head of the Church, persecuted and destroyed both Papists and
Protestants: the Papists because they preferred the Pope to the King,
and the Protestants because they could not receive _his Church_, which
contained the whole of Popery except the Pope.
“Edward the Sixth, the youthful and amiable successor of Henry as the
head of the Church, would gladly have been delivered from the necessity
of killing his best subjects because they could not think about religion
as his bishops did; but he was urged and goaded by the clergy into the
condemnation and execution even of tender women, whose only crime was
nonconformity to the Church of England. Cranmer, the archbishop, had
great difficulty in overcoming his natural kindness of heart, and
inducing him to sign the warrant for their death by _burning_; but he
did succeed, and it was done.”
“Surely,” exclaimed Theodosia, “you do not mean to say that Archbishop
Cranmer, the martyr, had been himself the means of bringing others in
the flames! I have always thought he was one of the best and holiest of
men. I remember there was in the catechism I used to study, a picture of
him as he stood at the stake, holding out his right hand in the fire to
punish it for signing his recantation.”
“Yes, Mrs. Percy, I mean to say that Cranmer was a murderer and a
persecutor. So also was in heart that other saint of whom you had a
picture in your catechism, representing _John Rogers_ at the stake,
surrounded by his wife and nine little children, one yet a nursing babe.
John Rogers was so far a persecutor, that when he was solicited to ask
for pardon, or at least some milder mode of death, for a woman condemned
to the flames, he obstinately refused to say one word in her behalf.”
“I must believe you, Mr. Courtney; but still it seems to me almost
incredible.”
“I grant, madam, that it is almost incredible; but I will show you such
authorities that you shall be convinced that Rome herself, even in her
worst estate, was never a bitterer or bloodier persecutor for
conscience’ sake, than was this newmade Church of England. Look at
Bishop Burnet’s History of the Reformation, vol. ii. p. 112. See also
Strype’s Ecclesiastical Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 214; or Neal’s History of
the Puritans; or Ivimey’s History of Baptism, pages 83–90. In the year
1549, a commission was given to Archbishop Cranmer and several others,
by the King as the HEAD _of this_ so called CHURCH of the gentle and
loving Jesus, to ‘search after all Anabaptists, (the same people now
called Baptists,) all heretics and contemners of their Book of Common
Prayer, and, if they would not be reclaimed, to excommunicate, imprison,
and deliver them over to death.’ There was a Baptist woman, Mrs. Joan
Boucher, sometimes called Joan of Kent, of whom Strype says, ‘She was a
great reader of the Scriptures,’ and who risked her life to circulate
the Scriptures among the ladies at court. She could not conform to all
that the bishops taught, and was therefore arrested and condemned. When
the young king refused to sign her death-warrant, Cranmer urged him,
with great earnestness, to authorize her execution. The king could not
answer the arguments of the learned prelate, and knew not how to resist
his importunity. He signed the warrant, but did it with tears in his
eyes, and protesting that he did it _only on the authority of the
Archbishop_, who had declared that God required it; and said, if it
should be wrong, that ‘he (the prelate) should answer for the sin in the
great day of judgment.’ The bishop took the warrant, and thus said, ‘Her
blood be upon my soul.’ Now in Fox’s Latin edition of the Book of
Martyrs are a few sentences which the English has omitted, and which are
thus translated by Mr Pierce in his answer to Nichols, p. 83:—‘In King
Edward’s reign some were put to death for heresy. One of these was Joan
Boucher, or Joan of Kent. Now, says Mr. Fox, when the Protestant bishops
had resolved to put her to death, a friend of Mr. John Rogers, the
divinity-reader in Saint Paul’s Church, came to him, earnestly desiring
him to use his influence with the archbishop that the poor woman’s life
might be spared, and other means used to prevent the spreading of her
opinion, which might be done in time; saying too, that though while she
lived she infected few with her opinion, yet she might bring many to
think well of it by suffering death for it. He pleaded, therefore, that
it was better she should be kept in some prison, without an opportunity
of propagating her notions among weak people; and she would do no harm
to others, and might live to repent herself. Rogers, on the other hand,
pleaded that _she ought to be put to death_. “Well then,” saith his
friend, “if you are resolved to put an end to her life, together with
her opinion, choose some other kind of death, more agreeable to the
gentleness and mercy prescribed by the gospel; there being no need that
such tormenting deaths should be taken up in imitation of the Papists.”
“‘Rogers answered, _that burning alive was no cruel death, but easy
enough_. His friend hearing these words, which expressed so little
regard to poor creatures’ suffering, answered him with great vehemence,
and striking Rogers’s hand, which before he had held fast, said to him,
“Well, _perhaps it may so happen that you yourselves shall have your
hands full of this mild burning._” And so it came to pass. Mr. Rogers
was the first man who was burned in Queen Mary’s reign. I am apt to
think,’ adds Mr. Pierce, ‘that Mr. Rogers’s friend was no other than Fox
himself.’—(_Crosby_, vol. i., p. 61. _Ivimey_, p. 92.)
“In the few remaining years of Edward’s life, and while the religion of
the realm was under the control of Cranmer, many other persons were
burnt at the stake for their religious sentiments. After the king’s
death, the Catholics had the supremacy for a little season, under the
reign of her whom historians have been pleased to call the Bloody Mary,
because she killed the Protestants for the same reasons that they had
killed the _Baptists_, and other so-called heretics.
“When Elizabeth came to the throne, the Baptists expected toleration,
and began openly to avow their sentiments. But they were fearfully
mistaken. They were burnt with just as little pity as the Catholics
themselves had ever shown. ‘Indeed,’ says Neal, ‘more sanguinary laws
were made in her reign than in those of her predecessors. Her hands were
stained with the blood of both Papists and Puritans: the former were
executed for denying her supremacy; the latter for sedition and
_nonconformity_.’ Nor did the persecution cease when Elizabeth had gone
to her account, and James became the head of the Church. It was
continued after James had died, and his unfortunate successor, Charles
I., had come to the headship of the Church. Fines and imprisonments,
whipping and mutilating, branding, torturing, and tormenting the saints
of God, who held the authority of the Sacred Word to be above the dicta
of the bishops, were not only inflicted by the laws, but earnestly
_urged_ upon the magistrates by the synods of the Church. (See the
_Constitutions and Canons_ of 1640.) But we have enough of this.
“He who would deny that the English Episcopal Church was a persecuting
Church, would deny that Rome herself ever persecuted for conscience’
sake. Not only is the testimony rife in _English history_, across the
water, but the men are living yet, _among ourselves_, whose ancestors in
_this_ country were, _by the English CHURCH laws_, condemned to fines
and imprisonments, if not to death. The jails are standing yet in which
they were confined. The iron bars are yet in place through which the
Baptist ministers of Virginia preached to their people, while Virginia
was subject to the head of the Episcopal Church. Now, let me say one
word, and I have done with this disagreeable subject: _When the Church
of_ _England became a persecutor for conscience’ sake, she CEASED TO BE
A CHURCH OF CHRIST_, even on the supposition that she had been one
before that time. So, whether you derive her from Rome, her persecuting
mother, or whether you try to trace her origin to the Apostle Paul,
through the ancient English Churches, is of no consequence at all. _She
lost her authority to act as Christ’s executive_ (if she ever had it)
_when she began to shed the blood of the martyrs of Jesus._ Trace your
succession of Christian Churches downwards from Christ; or trace it
upwards towards Christ; but, either way, it cannot cross that stream of
blood which flows out from the hearts of the martyrs of Jesus. Every
link of the chain of succession may he perfect, from Paul down to the
first of the martyrs whose life was taken by _the so-called Church_, for
his religion; but when the executioner lets fall his bloody axe, by
Church authority or instigation, the chain is severed for ever. That is
no Church of Christ that burns Christ’s people at the stake. Those gory
hands, which are red with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, cannot
confer the sacraments of his Church. Yet the advocates of Episcopacy
will have us believe that this is, forsooth, THE _Church_, and out of
her there are _no_ ordinances and _no_ Christian ministry!”
Mr. Courtney spoke with an energy of manner that was quite unusual for
him; and when he ceased, there was perfect silence for a little time,
till Theodosia, looking at her tablet, remarked that we had only one
mark more, which is, that no _apostate_ Church can be a Church of
Christ.
“If you derive the English Episcopal Church from the ancient British
Churches,” said Mr. Courtney, “she is _apostate_. She became so when she
became a hierarchy, introduced infants as members, united with the
state, (thus recognizing another lord than Christ,) and began to
persecute for conscience’ sake. Any _one_ of these innovations on
Christ’s order would have marked her apostate; and when she became
apostate, she ceased, of course, to be Christ’s Church. But if,
according to the indisputable truth of history, you derive her from Rome
in the age of King Henry VIII, she has _not become_ apostate, for _she
never was_ a true Church of Christ. She had, at first, _no baptism_ but
that of Antichrist. She had no ministry but that ordained by Antichrist;
and her _organization_ was that of Antichrist. She began in lust, and
worldliness, and blood. She was from her inception the mere creature of
the secular power; and, from the very first, so foul that she _could not
apostatize_.”
“My dear sir,” exclaimed the Doctor, “you must surely speak without
thinking of the full import of your words. I grant that the Church of
England was not at its inception a perfect Church. It still had some
leaven of Romanism; but was certainly a very great improvement on the
system which it supplanted, and far from being as vile as it could be.”
“By an apostate Church,” replied the schoolmaster, “we mean a Church
which has once been a true Church of Jesus Christ; but, by a change of
constitution, of membership, of doctrine, or of practice, in points
essential to its identity with the New Testament model, has _ceased to
be_ a true Church. It follows, therefore, that if _this Church of
England never had_ the characteristics of a true Church, she could not
lose them, and, consequently, could not apostatize. And this was all I
meant to say. But if you imagine that she was at her beginning any
better than her mother, of Rome, or in any way different from her as
regards the want of the essential features of a Church of Christ, let me
tell you that you have entirely misapprehended her character. The only
important difference between them was that the pope was the head of the
Roman, and the king was the head of the English. The king made laws for
the one, as the pope for the other. The king required faith in his
dogmas, on pain of death, as much as the pope. The king forbade the
people to read the Word of God as peremptorily as the pope. The king, in
short, became the pope of England. And this is what people call the
Reformation.”
“I am certainly mistaken, if such were really the case; but I suppose
you have the proof. I had been under the impression that King Henry
authorized and encouraged the reading of the Scriptures; and even
required, by his royal authority, that they should be publicly read in
the Churches.”
“That is true, sir. The king, _at first_, did order a translation to be
made; approved it when it was received from Tyndale; and it was ‘SET
FORTH WITH THE KING’S MOST GRACIOUS LICENSE;’ and a decree enacted that
it be ‘sold and read of every person, without danger of any act,
proclamation, or ordinance, heretofore granted to the contrary.’ All the
authority and influence of the government was earnestly and efficiently
employed to secure to the people the opportunity to read the Scriptures
and urge them to improve it.
“The king knew that the pope had forbidden the Scriptures to be read,
and trusted that, by reading them, his people would learn to fear and
hate the pope. But it did not occur to him that they would see that _he_
had no more right to rule the Church than the pope had. He thought also
that he had well secured his people from all danger of heresy, by the
law enacted about the same time, ‘to establish Christian quietness and
unity.’
“The doctrines enjoined by this statute were, 1. Transubstantiation. 2.
Communion in both kinds not necessary to salvation. 3. Priests may not
marry by the law of God. 4. Vows of celibacy binding. 5. Private masses
to be retained. 6. Auricular confession useful and necessary. Its
penalties were, for denial of the first article, _death at the stake_,
without privilege of abjuration; for the five others, _death as a
felon_, or imprisonment during his majesty’s pleasure.
“But so soon as the king found that if people read the Scriptures, they
would not, or could not, believe his monstrous doctrines; when he found
that hundreds of his most loyal subjects were ready to die at the stake
rather than profess to believe them, he suddenly changed his policy. And
it was then enacted, ‘That all manner of books, of the Old and New
Testament, in English, of Tyndale’s crafty, false, and untrue
translation, [the very same that had been before graciously ordered to
be read,] should, by authority of this act, be clearly and utterly
abolished and extinguished, and forbidden to be kept and used in this
realm, or elsewhere, in any of the king’s dominions.’
“And further, ‘That no manner of persons, after the first of October,
1543, should take upon them to read openly to others, in any Church or
open assembly, within any of the king’s dominions, the Bible, or any
part of the Scriptures, in English, unless he was so appointed thereto
by the king, or any ordinary, on pain of suffering one month’s
imprisonment.’
“And, to show how little probable it was that the king would appoint any
one to read, it was further enacted, ‘That no women, except noblewomen
and gentlewomen, might read the Bible to themselves alone; and no
artificers, apprentices, journeymen, serving-men of the decrees of
yeomen or husbandmen, or laborers, were to read the Bible or New
Testament to themselves, or any other, privately or openly, on pain of
one month’s imprisonment.’
“And then again, three years after this, ‘That, from henceforth, NO MAN,
WOMAN, OR PERSON, _of what degree he or they shall be_, shall, after the
last day of August next ensuing, receive, have, take, or keep, in his or
their possession, the text of the New Testament, of Tyndale’s or
Coverdale’s, _nor any other_, that is permitted by the act of
Parliament, holden at Westminster, in the thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth
year of his majesty’s most noble reign.’
“These and any other most interesting and significant facts connected
with the introduction of the vernacular Bible in the English nation, you
will find in that most admirable work of Mrs. Conant, _The History of
English Bible Translation_, pp. 320–325.
“That these laws were designed to be executed, and that they _were_
executed, even to the veriest extremity of their bloody requisition, the
history of many a murdered lover of the Scriptures will testify. Under
this law the Anabaptists were burnt, as testified by Bishop Latimer, in
many parts of England; and under it the heroic Anne Askew was first
tortured on the rack, and then burned at the stake.
“Now, what I say is this: a Church thus false in doctrine; thus like
Antichrist in government; thus devilish in spirit; ordained and
established by a wicked king, for worldly purposes, and sustained, from
the very first, by outraging, not merely the laws of God, but the
dictates of humanity, _could not have been at any time, by any
possibility_, A TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST. She could not, therefore,
cease to be a true Church, since she had never been one. She could not
apostatize. _Nor can she ever become a true Church_ while she remains
the Church of England. She may become less vile and abominable than at
first. She has indeed grown vastly better than at first. But, since she
was not a true Church then, she had no authority to administer the laws
or ordinances of Christ. Her baptism was, consequently, no more
Christian baptism than is a Mormon immersion; her ordination was no more
Christian ordination than if it had been performed by the priests of
Jupiter. Christ gave no sort of authority to any such establishment; and
all her acts are therefore _null and void_. So far from having the
_only_ baptism, she has no Christian baptism at all. So far from having
the _only_ ministry, she has no Christian ministry at all. So far from
having the _exclusive_ authority to confer the sacraments of Christ’s
Church, she has never received them, never has had, has not now, and
never can have, the right to confer them at all.”
“Surely,” said the Doctor, “she may repent and reform, if she has not
already done so. How then dare you assert that she can never become a
true Church, and have all the rights of any other true Church?”
“My dear Doctor, let us simply use our common sense one minute. We have
seen what a true Church is according to the Scriptures. It is a local,
independent society, and not a part of a confederacy or a hierarchy. If
_this_ Church should ever fall back upon the Scripture rule in this
respect, she will no longer be the Church of England.
“We have seen that a true Church can, _as a Church_, recognize no power
to make laws for her but Christ. Now, if this Church deny the power of
the king and parliament to determine for her the doctrines that her
members shall believe, and her ministers shall teach; what parts of
Scripture she shall read on certain days; what words of prayer she shall
employ; or that the king, by his chancellors and the bishops, shall have
control of her discipline; determine what each member must believe; who
shall be received as members, and by what form it shall be done; who
shall be excluded, who retained; and, in fact, almost every thing in
regard to all that characterizes a Church—I say, if she deny all or any
of this, she ceases to be _the Church of England_. We have seen that a
true Church consists of those who have first professed their faith, and
then have been baptized. Let this Church cease to receive any _but
believers_, and restore what she herself admits to have been the baptism
which Christ ordained, and which was _changed_ without authority from
him, and she will no longer be _the Church of England_. In short, if she
should ever be so far changed as to be conformed in all essential points
to the Scripture model, she must first _cease to be_. The king must
resign the headship and give it up to Christ. The bishops and
archbishops must leave their Episcopal thrones and become simple pastors
of single Churches. The discipline of the Church must revert to the
‘ekklesia,’ the assembly of the brethren and sisters. And from this
assembly those must be excluded who have not come to it _voluntarily_,
professed their _faith_, and then received that baptism which Christ
appointed.”
“And if all that is done,” said Theodosia, “she will no longer be the
English Episcopal Church, for these are her characteristic features. But
how is it with the American, or Protestant Episcopal Church?”
“In condemning the mother, we have sentenced the daughter,” replied Mr.
Courtney. “The Episcopal Church of this country was a _part_ of the
English so long as it _could_ be; and when, by the political separation
of the two nations, it became impracticable to retain _all_ that
belonged to the mother Church, no more was given up than was imperiously
demanded by the circumstances. The most important difference is, that as
the king or queen could not be here recognized as the head, the bishops
have retained the headship in themselves. It cannot here, since the
revolution, secure the power of the state to enforce its decrees; and,
therefore, it is no longer able to be a persecutor; and probably it has
no will to be. But if the mother was (as we have seen) no true Church of
Jesus, the daughter cannot be. She received her organization, her
ministry, and her ordinances, from the English Church; and if _that_ was
not the authorized executive of Christ, it had no right to confer
either, and its acts are null and void. The bishops of this country were
made such, not by the law of Christ, but under a special act of
_Parliament_, and their ministrations are limited by this act to the
western continent. Their commission does not read, ‘Go ye into _all the
world_,’ but, If you shall keep yourselves in the United States of
America, you shall have the right to exercise the office of a Christian
bishop. So the act of Parliament requires. The American Episcopal Church
exists, so far as the greater part of its ministry are concerned, by a
special act of the British government, passed _after_ we had become a
free and independent people; and that act confines their ministrations
to _this country_, or, at least, forbids them to preach the gospel of
salvation in the realms of her majesty the queen. Thus was _Christ’s_
command, ‘Go into all the world,’ set aside, and the English king’s
_permission_ humbly sought, and reluctantly granted, to preach in these
United States.”[8]
“I am convinced,” said the Doctor, “that _this_ is not the Church of
Christ. But let us hasten on, and find, if possible, what and where it
is.”
“Wait one minute,” said Mr. Percy, “till I have finished my diagram of
this claimant, and then I will be ready to look at another.
“Here is the picture, all black but half the space representing the
articles of faith.”
DIAGRAM OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
Signs or Marks of a True | | Marks of the Episcopal
Church. | | Church.
--------------------------+--------------+----------------------------
1st. It consists only of | ████████████ | It makes members of
professed believers in | | children, who do not know
Christ. | | their right hand from their
| | left.
2d. Its members have been | ████████████ | They were _sprinkled_ when
baptized upon a | | they were incapable of
profession of their | | believing.
faith. | |
3d. It is a local | ████████████ | It is a vast hierarchy, and
organization, and | | not a local organization.
independent of all | |
others. | |
4th. It has Christ alone | ████████████ | It is subject to the king
for its King and | | and Parliament in England,
Lawgiver, and recognizes | | and to the bishops in this
no other authority above | | country.
its own. | |
5th. Its members have | ████████████ | They were made such in
become such by their own | | childhood, without their
voluntary act. | | knowledge or consent.
6th. It holds as articles | ██████ | The high-Church party holds
of faith the fundamental | | to salvation by the
doctrines of the gospel. | | efficacy of the sacraments.
7th. It began with | ████████████ | It began with Henry VIII.,
Christ, and has continued | | or if before his time, it
to the present time. | | had apostatized.
8th. It never persecutes | ████████████ | It was many years a bloody
for conscience’ sake. | | persecutor.
9th. No apostate Church | ████████████ | If not apostate itself, it
can be a Church of | | was the creature and
Christ. | | offspring of Antichrist.
“I think,” said Mr. Courtney, “you might have left that white; for if we
take their published standards, TO WIT, the thirty-nine articles in the
Prayer-book, there is not much to object to them.”
“But how if they practically repudiate their own professions, and
elsewhere teach, and in their hearts believe, that it is by the
_sacraments_, and not by faith alone, that men are made the children of
God and the heirs of glory? This I understand the high-Church party to
have done, and so have marked them black.”
“Well, let it stand; we have not time to dispute about it now. Suppose
we take up the other branch, or off-shoot, of the English Episcopal
Church: TO WIT, the Methodists.”
“Very good; this is the natural place for them in our investigation; and
after what has been already settled in regard to the Roman Catholic and
Episcopal Churches, we need not spend much time upon their Methodist
offspring. Now, if Mrs. Percy will read again the first of the marks of
a true Church as they stand upon her tablet, we will apply it to this
claimant.”
“Is the Methodist Episcopal Church composed exclusively of those who
have professed a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?”
“I wish,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “that our Methodist minister were here to
answer for his Church. I do not like to see her tried without the
benefit of counsel.”
“Since he is not here,” said Theodosia, “let us set their Book of
Discipline to answer for them. Mr. Percy has a copy in his trunk, and
surely no Methodist, if he were present, would object to the reception
of its testimony.”
Mr. Percy went for the little book, and on his return opened at the 20th
page, and read as follows:
“‘The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in
which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly
administered, according to Christ’s ordinance, in all things that of
necessity are requisite to the same.’”
“It seems, then, from this, their own definition,” said Theodosia, “that
the Methodist Church must be a simple local congregation of believers,
or else it cannot be the visible Church of Christ; and yet it is
notorious that the Methodist Church is _not_ a mere _congregation_ of
believers, but that great confederation governed by the Conference. I
fear their theory and practice will not correspond.”
“Here is something more,” said Mr. Percy, “on the 30th page: ‘Let none
he received into the Church until they are recommended by a leader with
whom they have met at least six months on trial, and have been baptized,
and shall, on examination by the minister in charge before the Church,
give satisfactory assurances both of the correctness of their faith, and
their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the Church.’”
“Surely,” exclaimed Theodosia, “that excludes all but professed
believers; and I am glad to find that this claimant has the first mark,
at least, of a true Church. I have always admired the zeal and
self-denying piety of Mr. Wesley, and am glad he had such correct views
of what was necessary to membership in the Church of Christ; and yet I
hardly understand how these views are compatible with the system of
seekership and infant baptism. I have been under the impression that
many of the members of the Methodist Churches had never even pretended
to be converted people, but that they had joined the Church as seekers,
passed their six months’ probation, and had simply been _retained_ or
confirmed as members on the recommendation of the class-leader.”
“The actual and the theoretical Methodist Church,” replied Mr. Courtney,
“may be somewhat different. It is very certain that we read and hear
every week of persons joining the Methodist Church as seekers: and it is
equally certain that Methodists, as well as other Pedobaptists, contend
that persons are by baptism made members of the Church. Mr. Wesley
himself expressly says, that ‘_by baptism we are admitted into the
Church, and consequently made members of Christ its Head_. The Jews were
_admitted into the Church_ by circumcision; _so are Christians by
baptism_. For as many as are baptized into Christ, (in his name,) have
thereby put on Christ, Gal. iii. 27; that is, are mystically united to
Christ, and made one with him. For by one spirit we are all baptized
into one body, (1 Cor. xii. 13,) namely, the Church, the body of Christ,
from which spiritual, vital union with him proceeds the influence of his
grace on those that are baptized, as from our union with the Church a
share in all its privileges, and in all the promises Christ has made to
it.’ (See Doctrinal Tracts, p. 248, Treatise on Baptism.) And again, on
p. 250, ‘There can be no reasonable doubt but it [baptism] was intended
to last as long as _the Church into which it is the appointed means of
entering_.’”
“You need not have gone to Mr. Wesley,” said Mr. Percy, “for the
Discipline itself teaches very plainly that baptism is the door of
entrance to the Church, and consequently that all the baptized are, by
that act, made members of the Church. See the Ritual for Baptism, chap.
5th, sec. 2d, where the minister, coming to the font, is instructed to
say, ‘Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in
sin, and that our Saviour saith, none can enter into the kingdom of God
except he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost, I
beseech you to call upon God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ,
that of his bounteous mercy he will grant this child the thing which by
nature he cannot have, that he may be baptized with water and the Holy
Ghost, and _received into Christ’s holy Church_, and be made a lively
member of the same.’ And thus exhorted, the people, through the
minister, are taught to pray that the child now to be baptized may
receive the fullness of God’s grace, and _ever remain_ in the number of
his faithful and elect children’—precisely the same language which is
used farther on in reference to the baptized adults; and it would seem
that if adults are made members by baptism, the infants are by the same
process. Like the Presbyterians, however, they repudiate the act, and
practically deny the membership. They give them no more Church
privileges than if they had never had the holy water sprinkled on their
foreheads, and are thus guilty of the inconsistency of refusing to
commune with, or recognize as Church members, those whom they seem so
anxious to bring into the Church by baptism.”
“But how is it with _the seekers_, Mr. Courtney? Are they not counted as
Church members? I am sure they count themselves as such. Mrs Babbleton
told me, just before we left home, that two of her daughters had joined
the Church during a protracted meeting which had just closed, and that
one of them had professed _conversion_. I know they _both_ partook of
the Lord’s Supper, and seemed to have all the privileges that any Church
member has in their denomination; and I do not understand how they can
be entitled to all the _privileges_ of membership and yet be out of the
Church.”
“The difference,” said Mr. Courtney, “between a member in full, and a
member on probation, is simply this: the first cannot be excluded from
Church privileges except by the _preacher_ in charge, and that not until
after trial and conviction. The other can be cast out at any time by the
_class-leader_, without any trial or accusation. With this exception,
they are _equal partakers in all the rights and immunities of
Church-membership_; and whether converted or unconverted, all sit down
together at the table of the Lord. ‘There is,’ in the language of the
Discipline, ‘only _one_ condition previously required of those who
desire admission into these societies, and that is, a desire to flee
from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins;’ and these
societies are the Methodist Churches, if they have any Churches at all.
They do consist in part of unconverted people. They _may_ consist
_entirely_ of such. It _often_ happens that there is in them a
_majority_ of such; and this majority can recommend candidates for
license to preach; can witness the _trial_ of accused members, and, so
far as the laity have any part in _Church discipline_, it may be, and
is, in the hands of men _who have never made any pretensions to the
possession of true faith in Christ_, but only have expressed a _desire_
for it.
“It is ‘_the society_,’ or a _leader’s meeting_, that recommends persons
to be licensed to preach. See Discipline, chap. 2d, quest. 3, ans. 4. It
is ‘_the society_,’ or a ‘_select number them_,’ before which the
preacher is to try an accused member. Chap. 4, quest. 2, ans. 1. If the
society were mostly converted people, I see nothing in the Discipline to
hinder the preacher, if he chose to do it, from selecting those whom he
knew to be the _unconverted probationers_ to try the cause; nor can I
see, after a careful examination of the Discipline, that the _full_
member, as he is called, has any single privilege as a Church member
which is not equally conceded to the so-called _probationer_, so long as
it shall graciously please his class-leader to permit him to remain in
‘society.’
“If those who have made no profession of saving faith are permitted to
enjoy all the _privileges_ of Church members, and exercise all the
prerogatives of Church members, it can be a matter of no consequence
whether they are technically _called_ Church members or not. It is
_things_, not names, we must be governed by. If these societies form
_any part_ of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and they consist not of
professed believers upon Jesus, but in part or in whole of those who are
merely ‘_seeking_ the power of godliness,’ who have only professed
_conviction_ and not conversion, we must of necessity conclude that the
Methodist Episcopal Church does not consist _exclusively_ of those who
have professed their faith in Christ. Paul did not receive the jailer
when he had merely asked what he must do to be saved. He waited until he
had done what he was instructed to do. Nor did we, in all our
examination, find any instance of members, whether believers or
unbelievers, whether converted or only convicted, being received as
probationary Church members.”
“Really,” said Theodosia, “I do not feel quite satisfied with this
treatment of the Methodist societies. I fear we do not any of us fully
understand them, and may unconsciously do them some slight injustice. I
do wish some Methodist were here to plead their cause, and explain
apparent difficulties. I know that they have done much to spread
Christ’s gospel; I know that many of them are earnest and devoted
Christians, patterns of piety which I long to be able to copy. I have
read the lives of Wesley and Fletcher, and others among them, and am
sure they could not _designedly_ have gone counter to the teachings or
God’s Word. They _meant_ to serve the Master, and to lead men and women
in the way to heaven; and surely _their Church must have more marks of a
true Church than the Episcopal or Roman Catholic_.”
“Wesley and Fletcher, madam, lived and died as members of the English
Episcopal Church. They had no idea of leaving it for any other. What
they desired was, to infuse new life into its half-rotten carcass. They
sought not to destroy, but to reform it; and if _their personal piety_
makes the Church in which they had their membership a _true Church of
Christ_, it makes the Church of England such. But let me again remind
you, that it is not individuals, not persons, _but organizations_, which
we are examining. The piety of Pascal, of Fénélon, of Madam Adorna or
Madam Guyon, or even of Thomas à Kempis himself, could not make the
Church of Rome, to which they belonged, a Church of Christ. No more
could that even of the martyrs who bled for the Church of England make
it a Church of Christ. _Good people_ may, by birth or education, or
errors of judgment, become connected with _organizations_ which have no
single feature of a Christian Church, yet such connection will not
_change_ the _nature of the organization_. It is true, that if Wesley
had required, as a condition of membership in his societies, that piety
which he himself exhibited _after his conversion_, they would not have
been subject to the objective we are now considering. They would in that
case have consisted _exclusively_ of professed believers. But however
pious he may have been, however devoted many of his followers have been,
and may be now, yet he himself declares that the ‘_only_ prerequisite
for admission to his _societies_’ is a _desire_ of salvation. They,
according to his own words, consist of those who _have the form_ and are
_seeking_ the power of godliness. Now all _we_ have to do is, to
determine whether _this_ was the basis of membership in the New
Testament Churches. Was _this_ the condition of membership established
by Christ and the apostles? If _not_, then _his societies_ were not, and
without a change in this particular could not be, Churches of Christ.
This is as plain as common sense can make it.”
“Yes, Mr. Courtney, I see that, and admit its force; but still I would
feel better satisfied if we could compel some intelligent _Methodist_ to
see it and admit it with us.”
“Your wish to have a Methodist to assist in our discussion can very
easily be gratified,” said Doctor Thinkwell, “if you will but postpone
the conversation until to-morrow. The presiding elder of this district
is my nearest neighbor, and a special friend. He is, moreover, a man who
takes delight in the defence of whatever is peculiar in the system which
he advocates and of which he makes a part. The societies in this region
regard him as an oracle, whose authority is, in matters of faith, second
only to that of the bishop himself.”
“Do, then, let us wait,” exclaimed the lady. “We have talked too long
to-day already. I am sure you must all be tired but me; and, besides,
you know, Doctor, you have promised to take us in and show us the
Capitol, and the bridge, and the other marvellous things in and about
your famous City of Rocks.”
NINTH DAY’S TRAVEL.
In which the parties pass by and carefully examine the so-called
Methodist Episcopal Church, assisted by the Presiding Elder and his
amiable wife. Strange disclosures in the history of the Discipline.
WE will not detain the attention of the reader by giving a narrative of
the evening visit to the city. We will not describe the magnificent
capitol, the pride of Tennessee, at once the tomb and the noblest
monument of the architect who conceived its plan, but died before he
could witness its completion. We will not describe the city, with its
beauties or its blemishes, as it lay spread out before them like a map,
while they stood in the portico of this immense pile of massive rocks.
Nor will we stop to describe the ride round the plantation the next
morning. We have no time to tell of the romantic scenery upon the
river’s brink; the shaded avenues and terraced banks of flowers. We can
hardly even pause to go with Theodosia to the whitewashed cabin of old
“Aunt Rachel,” and hear her tell how, when her master was an infidel,
she prayed year after year that God would shine into his heart, and show
him what a blessed Saviour Jesus is; and how at last God heard her
prayers, and scent him home a Christian. “O missis! if you only knowed
how _my heart cried_ when master used to go on so about the Bible, you
wouldn’t blame old Rachel for shouting sometimes now, when I sees him
study the blessed book so, day after day. O, de blessed Lord as done
great things for us, missis. And now, if master could only see his way
into the Church, seems to me I could say, like ole Simeon, ‘Lord, now
thou lets me die in peace.’ But I hope he’s comin’ right bym-by.”
“Maybe you could tell him which the Church of Jesus is, Aunt Rachel.”
“Ah yes, missis, if they’d only ask the ole nigger, she’d tell them how
to get into the Church.”
“What directions would you give?” asked Theodosia, greatly interested.
“O, I’d just say, Do as my blessed Jesus did. He was baptized himself,
and he wants all his people to be baptized. Let then go down into the
water, ’cordin’ to his commandment.”
“Then you are a Baptist, Aunt Rachel.”
“Yes, missis, I was baptized more ’an thirty years ago.”
“But we are studying now to see if the Methodist Church is not the true
Church of Jesus Christ. What do you think about it, Aunt Rachel? Don’t
you think there are as many Methodists in heaven as there are Baptists?”
“Why, no, missis, bless your heart! the Baptists has been agoing there
ever since the days when John baptized in Jordan, and they tell me that
the Methodists just begun a little while ago. The Methodists is mighty
good people, missis; but they han’t been agoing to heaven so long as the
Baptists have. I hope master will hunt out in that blessed book till he
finds the good old way.”
“Your master has invited the Methodist minister and the lady to come
over and spend the day with us, and they will make a Methodist of him if
they can.”
“Ah, missis, the minister is a mighty good man. I loves to hear him
preach about Jesus; I loves to hear him tell about heaven; I loves to
hear him sing and pray, and they shall have the best dinner that ole
Rachel can fix up; but they isn’t goin’ to make master be a Methodist, I
knows that.”
“How do you know that, Aunt Rachel?”
“’Cause, missis, master goes _by the book_, an’ if the Methodist Church
was in the book, people would have found it long time before they did.”
The Doctor had himself gone over to his neighbor’s, after supper, and
explained to him in what position the discussion stood, and desired him
and his good lady to come and spend the day, and bring with them a copy
of the Discipline, and any other works which might assist in the
complete understanding of the system called Methodism.
At an early hour the visitors came, not prepared for or expecting _a
debate_, but ready to engage in social and kind _discussion_ of any
points of difference which might arise between them and those they came
to see.
Doctor Thinkwell introduced the subject of conversation by saying that
he and his other guests had found themselves embarrassed in their
investigation of the claims of the Methodist Church to be the Church of
Christ, by a fear that, in the absence of some one to represent her
claims, who was familiar with her polity and interested in her welfare,
they might do her some possible injustice. He desired to understand
precisely upon what ground she stood, and to give her claims _all_ the
weight to which they could be any way entitled.
“If you expect me to enter into any labored defence of the Church of
which I have the honor to be an humble minister,” replied the Rev. Mr.
Stiptain, “I hope you will excuse me if disappoint you; but if you
merely want such information as I possess concerning the doctrines, the
practice, the polity of the Methodist Church, I will take pleasure in
telling you all that can be of service to your investigation. The
Methodists, sir, are people who love the light. We do not wish to hide
our principles from friend or foe.”
“I am glad to hear you talk so,” said Theodosia, “for I feel that _we_
need more light upon this subject. I do not think we understand just
what the Methodist Church _is_ in regard to her organization and her
membership. You must know, sir, that we think we have ascertained, from
a careful examination of the Scriptures, that in the Churches
established by the apostles, _none_ were admitted to membership _who had
not professed a saving faith in Christ_; or, in other words, that they
were designed to be composed only of converted people. Now if this is
so, you will see that we cannot recognize any organization as the true
Church of Christ which does not adopt the same rule, and receive as
members _only_ those who have given evidence of genuine conversion. Now
in talking about your Church yesterday, we were in doubt whether you did
not admit the professedly _unconverted_; that is, those who have made no
profession of saving faith.”
“I do not see how you could have doubted for a moment, madam, except
from sheer ignorance of our practice. We are _so cautious_ to admit none
but true believers, that we require of all who would unite with us _six
months’ probation_, in order that we may be sure of their piety. The
great object of Mr. Wesley, as he again and again declared, was to
secure a _holy people_.”
“And yet I am told he admitted infants to baptism, and expressly said,
that by baptism they were made members of the Church.”
“Well, what if he did? Are not infants _holy_? Is it not of such that
the kingdom of heaven is composed? Would to God that all our adult
members were as pure and blameless as the little babes!”
“But do you treat them as Church members when they grow up? Do you not
require them to join on probation, just like a sinner who had never been
received at all? How is that? They are _in the Church_—made members by
baptism, and yet you do not permit them _to commune_, or recognize their
membership in any way whatever. And by requiring them _to join_ the
Church again, you virtually declare that they are _not_ and never have
been members. Please tell me, if they are members after they have been
baptized, _when do they cease_ to be members? At what age do you disown
them? or in what manner is their membership abrogated? Do they lose it
simply by _growing up_? If so, you seem to consider it a sin to grow.
Please explain this to us first, and then I have a question to ask about
the probationers, or _seekers_, as they are commonly called.”
The Rev Mr Stiptain moved his seat towards the table on which he had
laid his bundle of books when he came in, and picking out a very small
one, remarked, “I have here the Doctrines and Discipline of the
Methodist Episcopal Church South, which does not differ materially from
that of the Methodist Episcopal Church, or the Church _North_. This is
our standard of doctrine and discipline, and if you wish to learn the
exact relation of the baptized children to the Church, you will find it
here, chap. iii., sec. iii., quest. 1, ans. 5: ‘Let all baptized
children be faithfully instructed in the nature, design, privileges, and
obligations of their baptism. Those of them who are well disposed may be
admitted to our class-meetings and love-feasts; and such as are truly
serious, and manifest a desire to flee from the wrath to come, shall be
advised to join _the society_ as probationers.’”
“But let me ask, sir, if you do not advise _all persons_ who are ‘_truly
serious, and desire to flee from the wrath to come_,’ to join the
society as probationers, just the same as you do those who have beer
baptized in childhood?”
“Certainly we do.”
“Then you treat the baptized and unbaptized exactly alike as regards
admission to the Church; and yet you say the baptized were made Church
members in their childhood, and have never lost their membership: how
can they _join_ societies as probationers for membership when they are
members already, and have been from their very infancy?”
The Reverend Mr. Stiptain cleared his throat, and hitched his chair
still nearer to the table, and seemed to be looking for another book. He
did not try to answer the question,[9] and the kind-hearted host, to
relieve his evident embarrassment, called his attention to the other
portion of the extract which he had read from the Discipline.
“It seems,” said he, “that you ministers, or the members, are to
‘_instruct_ the baptized children in the _nature, design, privileges and
obligations_ of their baptism.’ This instruction is, of course, to be
given after they are old enough to understand; and as one of the chief
ministers, you are, of course, familiar with the substance of what is to
be taught to them concerning these points. If it will not trouble you
too much, I would be glad to hear what is in your Church understood to
be the _nature, design, and privileges_ of baptism as conferred on
infants. Of course you must mean _something_ by it. The baptized child
is, of course, understood to stand in a different relation to God, or to
the Church, or in some way to be in a different condition from one that
is unbaptized. What _is_ the change effected by it? What does it really
do, and for what purpose is it used? If we can ascertain this, it will
go far to remove the doubts which seem to trouble Mrs. Percy. For if it
is employed to make them members of your Church, then Church members we
must consider them until they are disowned by an official act, as public
and significant as that by which they are received. If it is employed
for this purpose, and does _not_ accomplish the purpose, it would appear
to me to be not only a useless, but a very foolish ceremony. But if it
is used, _not_ for this, but some other purpose, please tell us what
that other purpose is. I ask merely for the sake of information. You
have, of course, _given_ the instruction called for in the Discipline
hundreds of times, and can readily tell us what it is.”
“I do not know that I can answer your question more satisfactorily,”
replied the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “than by reading the explanations of
the father and founder of our societies, the venerable Mr John Wesley.
No Methodist will ever be counted as denying the true faith, or
departing from the right practice, while he can present the unquestioned
authority of Mr. Wesley for what he believes or does; and I therefore
prefer to call your attention to his instructions, rather than my own. I
have here Mr. Wesley’s own teachings on this subject; and as he was the
author of the instructions in the Discipline, which I have read, it is
very evident that it was _his own_ teachings concerning the ‘_nature,
design, and privileges_ of baptism,’ that the Discipline refers to, and
requires the ministers to inculcate.”
“That would seem to be almost self-evident,” said the Doctor; “and Mr.
Wesley’s expositions must set the matter at rest at once and for ever.
Please read them to us. We had ourselves referred to them, but only by
memory.”
“They are,” continued the Presiding Elder, “to be found in his Sermons,
and in the Doctrinal Tracts published by order of the General
Conference, as a sort of Appendix to the Discipline. I have here the
volume of Tracts; and this fact, that it is not only _sanctioned by the
Conference_, but published by their _positive order_, and under their
_supervision_, will be a sufficient guaranty to you and all concerned,
that the book contains a fair and honest exposition of what are the real
teachings required by the Discipline in the passage I have read.
“On page 242, Tract xii., we read, in the language of Mr. Wesley
himself, ‘Concerning baptism, I shall inquire, What it is? What benefits
we receive by it? Whether our Saviour designed it to remain always in
his Church? and who are the proper subjects of it?’ ‘1. What it is. It
is the initiatory sacrament which enters us into covenant with God.’”
“Never mind _what it is_,” said the Doctor. “We think we understand that
already. But tell us what the _benefits_ are which _infants_ baptized
according to the Discipline are expected to realize from it. _Does it
bring them into the Church?_ or leave them, like heathens, still in the
world?”
“O, if that is all you want, you have it in a very few plain words, on
page 248: ‘_By baptism we are admitted into the Church,_ and
consequently made members of Christ its Head.’ And again, on page 294,
8. 6, ‘Thirdly, If infants ought to come to Christ, if they are capable
of admission into the Church of God, and consequently of solemn
sacramental dedication to him, then they are proper subjects of baptism.
But infants are capable of coming to Christ, of _admission into the
Church_, and solemn dedication to God. [P. 255:] Therefore his disciples
or ministers are still to suffer infants to come; that is, to _be
brought into the Church_, which cannot be but by baptism. Yea, “and of
such,” says our Lord, “is the kingdom of heaven.” Not of such only as
were like these infants; for if they themselves were not fit to be
subjects of that kingdom, how could others be so because they were like
them? _Infants, therefore, are capable of being admitted into the
Church, and have a right thereto._ Even under the Old Testament, they
were admitted into it by circumcision; and can we suppose they are in a
worse condition under the Gospel than they were under the Law? and that
our Lord would take away any privileges which they then enjoyed? Would
he not rather make additions to them? This then is a third ground:
infants ought to come to Christ, and no man ought to forbid them. _They
are capable of admission into the Church of God;_ therefore they are
proper subjects for baptism.’
“So again on page 266: ‘The children of the Jews were visible members of
the Jewish Church under the covenant of Abraham, and as such were
received into it by circumcision as the door of entrance. The children
of Christians were never cut off from this privilege when their fathers
were received into the Church, whether they were Jews or Gentiles, and
therefore _they are members of the Christian Church_ also, under
spiritual promises and blessings.’
“I trust these extracts will make clear to you what were Mr. Wesley’s
teachings on the point about which you ask for information.”
“Excuse me, Mr. Stiptain,” said Theodosia; “but is it not true that the
Methodist Church _now_ has departed from the doctrines of Mr. Wesley on
this subject? Do they still hold, as he did, that _baptism admits
infants into the Church,_ and makes them members of it? Could you not
direct our attention to some more recently published work, which would
give us with certainty their _present_ faith and practice in regard to
this interesting point?”
“I am happy to say, madam, that I can. Here is our brother, P. D.
Gorrie’s most admirable ‘_History of METHODISM as it WAS and as it IS_,’
recommended by two presiding elders, who examined it in manuscript, and
who testify over their official signatures ‘that the facts therein
stated are correct, as far as they have been able to judge,’ and
recommend the work, especially to the members and friends of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, as containing ‘much useful information in
relation to the history, _doctrines, and institutions_ of Methodism.’
“In this standard work, published in 1852, we have a plain and
comprehensive statement of the present faith and teachings of the Church
upon this point. And first, as to ‘_the nature_’ of baptism. Here, on
page 170, I read as follows: ‘The nature of baptism. 1. It is a
figurative ordinance, symbolical of our death unto sin, and our being
born again from above; of being purified by the water of regeneration
and receiving of the Holy Ghost.’”
“Pardon me for interrupting you; but do you understand that when an
infant is baptized, its baptism signifies _that it has died to sin_ and
been _born again_ from above; that _it_ is, or has been, purified by the
water of regeneration, and has received the Holy Ghost? This is all very
appropriate and beautiful as applied to a _converted man_, but how can
it be true of an unconscious babe?
“But go on sir; I ask your pardon; I ought not to have interrupted you.”
He reads again: “‘2. _Baptism is a sign of profession,_ a rite which was
instituted under the law and retained under the gospel, as the
distinguishing mark or sign of a profession of faith. As the generic
term, to _baptize_, means to purify and cleanse, not only is there in
baptism a sign of inward moral cleansing, but a sign of outward moral
conformity to the law of God and the rules of the Church on earth.’”
“So, when you baptize an infant,” said Theodosia, “it is a sign that it
professes, or _has professed, its faith_ in Christ, while yet it does
not know its right hand from its left, and could not be made to
understand that such a being as Christ ever existed. Please, sir, go
on.”
“‘3. _Baptism is also considered as the door of entrance into the
Church._ “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” “Repent and
be baptized,” “Then were they baptized, both men and women,” “Then
Philip baptized him,” are passages which clearly show that water-baptism
is designed to be an initiatory rite, and that in this way men are
_generally_ to be received into the Church. We say _generally_, for we
dare not say that no person can be a member of the household of faith
without water-baptism, for we know act that the apostles even were ever
baptized, except in the washing of feet; but, as a general rule, baptism
is and ought to be the initiatory rite.’”
“That is enough,” said Theodosia, “to answer my question. If ‘baptism is
considered the door of entrance into the Church,’ then all who have been
baptized must be considered as having passed through the door and as
being in the Church. It is true you speak as though you were doubtful
whether people might not be _born_ in the Church, or get into it in some
other way, without going through the door; but there is no question that
those who _have_ gone through _are actually in_; and if they are in the
Church they are Church members, and we must so consider them, until they
are officially _expelled_ by those who have the power of discipline.”
“If any of you have any doubt remaining,” said Mr. Courtney, very
quietly, “it may be dispelled by turning to the 173d page.”
The Rev. Mr. Stiptain politely handed him the book, and he read as
follows:
“‘That infants are scriptural subjects of baptism appears from the
following considerations: “1st. The perpetuity of the Abrahamic
covenant, which included children as well as adults.” “2d. _The
eligibility of children to Church-membership._ That infants were members
of the Jewish Church is evident from the fact of their circumcision,
which was the initiatory rite, or door of admission into the Church of
God. Can we possibly conceive that the children of Christian parents are
entitled to lesser privileges than were the children of Jewish parents;
or would it be any inducement to a pious Jew of the present day to be
told that although his children are members of the Jewish Church, yet,
on his embracing Christianity and becoming a member of the Christian
Church, his children must be thrust out until they attain to adult
years? Does not our Saviour explicitly say in regard to young children,
‘Of such is the kingdom of heaven?’ The kingdom must mean, either the
kingdom of glory, the work of grace in the heart, or the Church of
Christ on the earth. Now, in whatever sense it is used in the text, it
must include the idea of _infant Church-membership_. Is a young child
fit for the kingdom of glory? Then why not for the kingdom of grace? If
fit for the Church triumphant, then why not for the Church on earth? And
was not the promise of God given to Christian parents and their
‘_children_, and to all that are afar off?’ If so—and there can be no
reasonable doubt of it—then are infants entitled to the initiatory rite
which _will formally admit them into the visible Church of Christ_; and
to debar them that privilege is not only unwise, but unjust to the
children whom God has given us.”’
“And here also, near the bottom of the 174th page: ‘Again, if children
were fit subjects for circumcision, they are equally fit subjects of
baptism. And if it be inquired, as it sometimes is, What good does it do
a young child to baptize it? we might reply, What good did it do a young
child to circumcise it? In the latter case it admitted the child to
_Church-membership_, and in the former case _it does the same_. What
more than this does it do in the case of an adult?’”
“You see, madam,” said the Presiding Elder, “that we Methodists do not
entirely agree with you in regard to the teachings of the Scriptures
about what constitutes a true Church. You think it excludes all but
professed believers. We understand that it includes believers and their
children, and in fact all children who have been baptized.”
“We do not need, for our own satisfaction, to recur to the evidence on
which our rule is based,” she replied. “We settled it after a careful
study of all the facts and arguments, including those presented by your
author. We are now endeavoring to apply it to the various claimants for
Church honors, and my only doubt was, whether yo Methodist Church _did_
regard the baptized children _as Church-members_, or whether you
baptized them for some other purpose.
“It seems, however, that I had no occasion to doubt at all. Not only the
earliest, but the latest, expounders of your faith and practice clearly
avow and contend for infant Church-membership.
“You expressly declare that baptism is the door of entrance into the
Church; that infants are baptized because they are entitled to
Church-membership, and that by baptism the child is admitted to
Church-membership just as much as the adult.
“I cannot help wondering how they get out of the Church after they have
been thus admitted, so that they have _to join it on probation_, just
like the unbaptized heathen; _or how you dare to refuse to commune with
your own Church members_, when you complain so much of us Baptists
because we cannot conscientiously commune with those whom we do not
recognize as members of the Church at all. But I can no longer doubt
that people are made members of the Methodist Church without their own
knowledge or consent, while they are little babies. And I will now, with
your permission, propound my other question, which is this: Are those
people called _seekers_, or probationers, members of the Methodist
Church?”
“Certainly not, madam. That is, they are not _full_ members.”
“I do not know, sir, that I precisely understand you,” replied
Theodosia. “We did not, in our examination of the first Churches as
described in the Scriptures, find any class of persons (so far as I can
now recollect) who were Church members and yet not _full_ Church
members. They were either members or not members. They were either in
the Church or out of it They were either entitled to all the privileges
of Church-membership, or to none at all. Yet _you SEEM to have a class
who are neither in nor out of the Church_; but I suppose they are either
in one condition or the other. They are in the Church, or else they are
not in the Church; and I would be glad to have some definite and
reliable _authority_ by which we can decide whether the probationers
_are really IN or OUT_. If you do not feel prepared to say for yourself,
could you not, as in the other case, refer us to some statement of Mr.
Wesley, or other of your standard writers?”
“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.”
“If you will promise, madam, that you and your good husband will not get
angry with me for my plainness of speech, I will engage to _prove_ to
you that they _have done it_ again and again. I will show you from the
different editions of your own Discipline that you _have_ changed the
terms of admission, or the conditions of membership, at least half a
dozen times already, in the few years of your existence as a Church.”
“I am sure, sir, our curiosity itself will keep us in a good humor.”
“Certainly,” exclaimed her husband, “we will be very much obliged to Mr.
Courtney for any information which he may be able to give us concerning
the history of the Methodist Church; and as for his plainness of speech,
we have already given him full proof that we are not offended by it. The
truth is, I _enjoy_ it: I _love_ to hear a man speak right out all that
is in his heart.”
“Then,” continued Mr. Courtney, “I will go on to talk freely. I know I
am sometimes blunt, nay, almost rude of speech, and I thank you for your
good-natured endurance of the hard things (as they may seem to you)
which conscience squires me to say.”
“Never mind apologies, Mr. Courtney, go on with your argument.”
“Well, sir, your Church, _as a Church_, dates its existence from
Baltimore, Maryland, about Christmas of the year seventeen hundred and
eighty-four; it is yet, therefore, much less than a hundred years old.
It was created then and there by sixty preachers, who say in the Minutes
of the Conference published in 1785, ‘At this Conference it was
unanimously agreed that circumstances made it expedient for us to become
a separate body, under the denomination of the “Methodist Episcopal
Church.”’ And again they say, ‘We formed ourselves into an independent
Church.’ From this time, therefore, I will count the changes. If you
claim an earlier origin, and will permit me to go back to what in your
Discipline is called ‘the Rise of Methodism,’ in 1729, I will find many
others. But as you did not _claim_ to be a _Church of Christ_ until
1784, I think it fair to make that our starting-point.
“Now here is a little book of 364 pages, published by Lane & Scott, No.
200 Mulberry street, New York, in 1851, styled the ‘_History of the
Discipline_,’ by Robert Emory, who was, as I learn from the preface,
himself a Methodist, and a Methodist minister, and who has certainly
made a most valuable contribution to the literature of your
denomination. That our friends here may understand precisely the
character of the work, and see how much reliance should be placed upon
the statements, I will read to you a portion of the
“‘PREFACE.
“‘When a young Methodist preacher enters, in accordance with the
requirements of the direction of his Church, upon the study of its
Discipline, he is curious to know when and by whom that Discipline was
framed. He learns, indeed, from the book itself, that the General
Conference has “full powers to make rules and regulations,” under
certain “limitations and restrictions;” but who imposed those
“limitations and restrictions,” and to what extent has the General
Conference used its powers? There is internal evidence that the present
Discipline was not composed at one time. At what periods, then, were its
several parts introduced, and what modifications have they undergone?
These are points not only of curious inquiry, but essential often to
right interpretation; but they are points on which students, generally,
can obtain no satisfactory information. In our civil governments the
statutes are scattered through the several volumes of laws which have
been published from time to time, and therefore these are all preserved;
but in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Discipline, as revised at
each General Conference, being in itself complete, supplants all that
had gone before it, and the previous editions are cast aside as of no
further use. This has continued until now nearly sixty years have
elapsed since the organization of the Church, and the Discipline has
undergone about twenty distinct revisions. Where, then, shall the
student go to find these successive editions? If he resort to the
libraries of the eldest preachers, they are not there: to the library of
the Book Concern, they are not there: to the archives of the General
Conference, still they are not to be found. Despairing of success in
this pursuit, he may, perhaps, examine the Journals of the General
Conference, (though, from the nature of the case, this is a privilege
which few can enjoy;) but here he will find that all prior to 1800 are
missing, and that those subsequent to that date convey no accurate
information as to the changes in the Discipline; because in the
alterations references are made to the chapter, section, question, page,
etc., which cannot be understood without having a copy of the their
Discipline in hand. And, moreover, because at each General Conference
the subsequent publication of the Discipline is intrusted to a committee
invested with powers (often largely discretionary) as to the selection,
arrangement, and wording of the several parts; and no report of their
proceedings is entered on the journal.
“‘The embarrassment which is here supposed in the mind of the student of
the Discipline, is precisely such as the author himself experienced. In
such a dilemma he endeavored to collect for himself a set of the
different Disciplines. Having his lot cast amid the earliest seats of
Methodism in this country, he had the good fortune of rescuing one old
Discipline after another from its obscure resting-place, until at
length, with one exception, the series was completed, and the rich
gratification was enjoyed of tracing, in the original documents
themselves, the progress of the Discipline from the first simple series
of questions and answers to its present more elaborate structure of
parts, chapters, and sections. The collection thus made could not be
rendered universally accessible. The author has thought, therefore, that
he would be doing a service to students of the Discipline generally, and
especially to his brethren in the ministry, by publishing the results of
his investigations in a condensed form. Such was the origin of the
present work. In the preparation of it the author has aimed at nothing
more than the most perfect accuracy in the statement of facts, and the
most lucid arrangement which the nature of the case admitted.… The
changes in the form and arrangement of the Discipline are noticed in the
first book, and in the second, the changes in its contents. That these
last might be stated as precisely as possible, _the very words of the
Discipline are quoted_.’
“You see, therefore,” said Mr. Courtney, looking up from the book, “that
we have here the very words of the Discipline, quoted by a Methodist
minister for the instruction of his own brethren, and showing precisely
what changes have from time to time been made. I propose to follow up
these changes only so far as they modify the terms of admission into the
Church, and the conditions of membership after admission.
“Let us now turn to page 26, and examine the Discipline of 1784, which
was the first. And here at the very beginning is an announcement which
shows how little the authority of Christ was regarded, and proves that
though it was now to be called a Church of Christ, it was as much as
ever the Church of Wesley.
“‘QUESTION 2. _What can be done in order to the future union of the
Methodists?_
“‘ANSWER. _During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge
ourselves his sons in the gospel, READY, IN MATTERS OF CHURCH
GOVERNMENT, TO OBEY HIS COMMANDS._’
“This neglect of all reference to the word of God or the authority of
Christ, was in perfect harmony with the action of the first Conference
held in America, some eleven years before. (See page 9.) ‘The Methodist
societies were originally governed by the General Rules drawn up by the
Wesleys in 1743, and by the regulations adopted in the Conferences which
were held yearly from 1744. These regulations were first published in
the Minutes from year to year. They were afterwards collected together
and printed, with some slight alterations, in a tract entitled “The
Large Minutes.” The same rules and regulations, so far as applicable to
their condition, governed the Methodist societies in America from the
time of their first formation, in 1766. _At the first Conference in
1773, the preachers formally recognized_ “the doctrine and discipline of
the Methodists,” as contained in the English Minutes, to be “_the SOLE
rule of their conduct._”’ (Ans. to quest. 2, page 10.)
“So, in determining their form of government, they made no references to
the Scripture, but say that, ‘_Following the counsel of John Wesley_,
who recommended the episcopal form, we thought it best to become an
episcopal Church.’
“But this is nothing to our present purpose. We want the changes in the
terms of admission, and conditions of membership. And, first, it appears
on page 17, that those coming into the society were to be received only
after three months’ probation; but as soon as _the Church_ was formed
she changed this law; and on page 35 we read, ‘How shall we prevent
improper persons from insinuating into the society? Ans. Give tickets to
none till they are recommended by a leader with whom they have met at
least _two_ months.’ _This was all_ that was requisite for
Church-membership for the first five years. Any one could be a member
without further ceremony if the leader certified to his good conduct for
_two_ months, and the _preacher_ would receive him. There was no
_baptism_, no _profession of_ faith, no examination before the
society—nothing at all but the _two_ months’ probation; but in 1789, the
Conference decreed that they must wait four months longer, and the
probation was lengthened to _six_ months, where it now stands; but still
there was _no baptism_, no _profession_, no examination before the
society. No one was consulted but the preacher, and he decided on the
recommendation of the _leader_ after six months’ probation in the
observance of the _rules_; and these rules, though they require strict
morality, and the observance of external religious _forms_, say not a
word about true repentance towards God, or faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ.”
“Surely, Mr. Courtney, you must misunderstand the writer. He cannot mean
to say that the Methodist Church admitted members without _baptism_, or
any profession of faith, for five years.”
“Yes, madam, it did so—_not for five years only, but FOR OVER FIFTY
YEARS._ It extended the probation at the end of five years; but it was
not till _fifty-two_ years after its organization at Baltimore, in
1784—not until 1836, that baptism was required as a term of membership.
This doubtless seems very strange to you. It _is strange_, even to
astonishment; but it is, nevertheless, most woefully true. Here is the
book; you can read it for yourself. (P. 182.)”
“‘1856. _It was now made a requisite for admission into the Church that
the candidates have been baptized._’”
“If it had been a requisite before, how could it then, in 1836, have
been ‘made a requisite?’
“So, you see, for fifty-two years the Methodist Church required, as
terms of membership, only the two months’ probation for the first five
years, and the six months for the other thirty-seven years; but during
all the time, _no baptism and no profession_. And it was not until 1840,
four years after baptism had been made a term of admission, that any
profession of faith was required; for you may read on the same page,
182:
“‘1840. The following was added to the requisites for admission into the
Church:
“‘And shall, on examination by the minister in charge, before the
Church, give satisfactory assurances, both of the correctness of their
faith and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the
Church.’
“Now, without inquiring any further, we have _three times_ seen a
fundamental change in the conditions on which members could be
_received_. How many more they may have made we need not now take time
to examine. I will, however, call your attention to at least one more,
which you will find on page 44, sec. 9: ‘_No person holding slaves shall
in future be admitted into society or to the Lord’s Supper_, [they would
not even admit him on probation,] till he previously complies with these
rules.’ That is, the rules which we shall presently give at length, and
which positively require the emancipation of the slaves, whether they
desire it or not. This rule was suspended the next year after it was
made, (see page 80,) but was not repealed till twelve years afterwards,
when it was enacted that ‘No slaveholder should be received into society
till the preacher who has the oversight of the circuit has spoken to him
freely and faithfully on the subject of slavery.’ (Page 275.) It does
not appear what the preacher was to say, nor whether it was necessary
that what he said should have any particular effect on the slaveholder’s
mind or conduct. But he could not come in till he had been talked to.
“But now, let us look at the conditions of _continuance_ in this Church
after members have actually been admitted. How many times these have
been changed I cannot positively say; but I am sure I can point you to
more than you would believe except upon the testimony of your own
brother minster.
“In the first Discipline, adopted in 1784, we have already seen that to
_become_ a member, it was necessary to have been two months on trial;
but now, what was required to _remain_ a member? It would seem, from
page 87, that members ‘_must not marry unbelievers or unawakened
persons_.’ ‘Question 21. What can be done to put a stop to this? Answer.
Let every preacher publicly enforce the apostle’s caution: “Be not
unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” 2. Let him openly declare
that _whoever does this will be expelled from the society_,’ etc.
“So here, at first, the penalty was expulsion; but, in 1804, (see page
187,) ‘the punishment for violating the rule was changed from expulsion
to putting back on trial for six months.’ And after thirty-two years
more, the penalty was, in 1836, (see page 188,) ‘entirely done away
with.’ So, what was a sin demanding expulsion, was so much _less_ sinful
after twenty years, that it only required a second probation to atone
for it; and after thirty-two years longer, had ceased to be a sin at all
deserving punishment. She who married an unawakened man for her first
husband, must have been expelled; and for marrying the second of the
same sort, put back upon probation; and for marrying the third of the
same sort had she lived long enough to do so, would have not even been
reproved. Surely men are wiser than their Master! But excuse me; I will
show you another of these changes in the condition of membership.
“Let us now turn to page 43 of this valuable book, and see what were the
_rules_ adopted by _the Church_, at the time of its organization, _on
the subject of slavery_, and see if we can ascertain how many times
slaveholding was and was not made a condition of expulsion. We have
already seen how it affected the terms of _admission_; we wish now to
inquire how it operated on those of continuance. I will read:
“‘Question 42. What methods can we take to extirpate slavery?
“‘Answer. We are deeply conscious of the impropriety of making _new
terms of communion_ for a religious society already established,
excepting on the most pressing occasion; and such we esteem the practice
of holding our fellow-creatures in slavery. We view it as contrary to
the golden law of God, on which hang all the law and the prophets, and
the unalienable rights of mankind, as well as every principle of the
Revolution, to hold in the deepest debasement, in a more abject slavery
than is to be found in any part of the world, except America, so many
souls that are capable of the image of God.
“‘We therefore think it our most bounden duty to take immediately some
effectual method to extirpate this abomination from among us, and for
that purpose we _add the following to the rules of our society, namely_:
“‘1. Every member of our society who has slaves in his possession,
shall, within twelve months after notice given to him by the assistant,
(which notice the assistants are required immediately and without any
delay to give in their respective circuits,) legally execute and record
an instrument whereby he emancipates and sets free every slave in his
possession who is between the ages of forty and forty-five, immediately,
or, at farthest, when they arrive at the age of forty-five.
“‘And every slave who is between the ages of twenty-five and forty,
immediately, or, at farthest, at the expiration of five years from the
date of the said instrument. And every slave who is between the ages of
twenty and twenty-five, immediately, or, at farthest, when they arrive
at the age of thirty. And every slave under the age of twenty, as soon
as they arrive at the age of twenty-five at farthest. And every infant
born in slavery, after the above-mentioned rules are complied with,
immediately on its birth.
“‘2. Every assistant shall keep a journal, in which he shall regularly
minute down the names and ages of all the slaves belonging to all the
masters in his respective circuit, and also the date of every instrument
executed and recorded for the manumission of the slaves, with the name
of the court, book, and folio, in which the said instruments
respectively shall have been recorded; which journal shall be handed
down in each circuit to the succeeding assistants.
“‘3. In consideration _that these rules form a new term of communion_,
every person concerned who will not comply with them, shall have the
liberty quietly to withdraw himself from our society within the twelve
months succeeding the notice given as aforesaid, _otherwise the
assistant shall exclude him from the society._
“‘4. No person, so voluntarily withdrawn or excluded, _shall ever
partake of the Supper of the Lord_ with the Methodists, till he complies
with the above requisitions.
“‘5. No person holding slaves shall in future be admitted into society,
or to the Lord’s Supper, till he previously complies with these rules
concerning slavery.
“‘N. B. These rules are to affect the members of our society no further
than they are consistent with the laws of the States in which they
reside. [That is, if the instrument of emancipation could not be legally
made and recorded, and would be of no binding force, it need not be
done.]
“‘And respecting our brethren in Virginia that are concerned, and after
due consideration of their peculiar circumstances, we allow them two
years from the notice given to consider the expedience of compliance
with or non-compliance with these rules.’
“Now did ever the veriest despot of any nation on the globe use language
more peremptory than this? ‘Every member who has slaves _shall_ legally
execute and record,’ etc.; and, to be sure that the order is obeyed, the
circuit-rider, as provost-marshal, is to keep a book with every name
recorded; and, if they do not comply within the year, must cast them
out—except the dear brethren in _Virginia_, who, I suppose, had no
chance to hide behind the State laws, and they are graciously
‘_allowed_’ to live in sin _two_ years instead of one.
“But it is not for the arrogance, or folly, or unscripturalness of the
law that I called your attention to it; but to show you that they
themselves _openly avowed_ and fearlessly _exercised_ the right to
legislate for the Church of Christ, even to the extent of making _new
terms of communion_, which Christ or his apostles never thought of
making, and which they themselves presently receded from.
“I would like to have been present when the ‘assistant’ started round
his circuit, with copies of the law and the slave-book in his hand, to
make his ‘record.’ He comes to the house of a good old Virginia planter,
who loves his servants, and who loves his Saviour, and has long been a
member of ‘the society.’
“‘My dear brother,’ says the ‘assistant,’ ‘I suppose you are aware that
we are now no longer societies, but _a Church of Jesus Christ_.’
“‘Yes, I have heard so, and think it a very good plan.’
“‘I have called in to get the names and ages of your _servants_. You
know =we= passed a law that you must set them free so soon as they
arrive all certain ages, specified in the document, a copy of which I
now present you for your instruction.’
“‘YOU passed a law commanding me to free my slaves!’
“‘Yes, sir; and if you don’t promptly comply, I am positively instructed
to _excommunicate you from the Church_, unless you will quietly
_withdraw_, which you are at liberty to do if you see fit. Moreover, it
is by this law made my duty to take down the names and ages of all the
slaves belonging to all the masters in my circuit; so, as am in haste
this morning, you will please furnish me the catalogue at once.’
“So saying, he draws up to a table, opens his book, gets out his pen and
pocket inkstand.
“‘Now, sir, if you please. I am ready. Begin with the oldest, and let me
have names and ages in regular order, down to the infants; and,
remember, those born hereafter are born free; for so =we= have
determined it.’
“‘=We=? whom do you mean by =we=?’
“‘The Conference, sir, consisting of the travelling preachers and
bishops.’
“‘My dear brother, you know I have always been a consistent Methodist?’
“‘Yes, Brother A., I can certify to that.’
“‘And you had no fault to find with me until you passed this law, which
could justify my exclusion from the Church?’
“‘Certainly not; nor have we now, if you will comply with our demands,
and promptly free your slaves.’
“‘But my slaves and I have grown up together. I received them from my
parents, and feel bound to care for them; and I conscientiously believe
I can do more for their temporal and spiritual good, as slaves, bound to
obey me, than I could if they were turned loose to prey upon society,
as, like a set of lazy vagabonds, they would be sure to do. For a
slave’s idea of freedom, you know, is mere release from any obligation
to labor.’
“‘I cannot help what your conscientious convictions may be; _=our= law_
must be obeyed, or you must leave _the Church_—quietly, if you will,
forcibly if we must.’
“‘But, my dear brother, my slaves will most of them prefer to stay in
their present condition. They are not only better off than “_free
negros_,” but they have the sense to know it. You may go out and ask
them, one by one; and if you can find any that are willing to leave
their old master, you may take them with you, and let the Conference
provide for their wants, temporal and spiritual, as faithfully as I
have.’
“‘It does not matter, sir, whether they desire freedom or not; or
whether they would be worse or better off by being free. You must set
them free, or leave _our Church; for so =we= have decreed_.’
“‘Well, my dear brother, this takes me somewhat suddenly, and I would
like to think about it.’
“‘Certainly, we give slaveholders in other States only a year, but to
_Virginians_ we allow _two_ years, during which you may consider, and
_withdraw_ if you don’t choose to comply with our law, or be
excommunicated.’
“‘O, I don’t want two years, I only want just time enough to _search the
Scriptures_. I understand that the Methodist Church is the _Church of
Christ_. Is that not so?’
“‘Certainly, we are the Church of Christ and of God.’
“‘But I have somehow gotten hold of the idea that Christ himself was the
author of the laws of his Church. I am an old man, and may be
old-fashioned in my opinions, but I don’t exactly feel that I am bound
by _your law_, though I am entirely willing to submit to the authority
of _Christ_. Did you find _in the Bible_ that slaveholders could not be
members of _Christ’s Church_? You are in a great hurry, I know, but
please take a _few_ minutes to show me the texts. I was a master, and
had been for years, when it pleased God to convert my soul and make me a
Christian. I very naturally went to the _Bible_ to learn my duty as a
master: I don’t see where else I could have gone. I read there that I
must treat my servants kindly and justly, and _this_, you know, I have
always tried to do. But I did not see any thing which seemed to
contemplate the dissolution of the relation of master and servant, or,
as it is in the original, master and slave. On the contrary, I found
that the Christians who were slaves were to be _obedient_ to their
masters, and to do them good and faithful service; and especially _they
that have believing masters_.’
“‘But, brother, you know _the Conference has made the law_, and the
Churches _must obey_.’
“‘But what if I choose to obey God rather than the Conference? What if I
deny the right of Conference to compel me to free my servants? What if I
ask them to read the language of Paul to Timothy, sixth chapter, first
and second verses: “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count
their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his
doctrine be not blasphemed; and they that have _believing_ masters, let
them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them
service, because they are faithful [literally, “_believing_”] and
beloved, partakers of the benefit.” _Paul_ said if any man taught
otherwise than this, (verse 3,) “he is proud, [or, literally, “_a
fool_,”] knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of
words,” etc. What if I say that not only Paul but Peter recognizes the
relation of masters and servants among Christian people and Church
members, just as plainly as he does that of husbands and wives? What if
I ask them to show me where Jesus ever sent _his_ ministers out with a
book under their arm to take an inventory of his people’s slaves, so
that the Church might know if they were freed; or where Peter, or Paul,
or John, or James, or any other apostle, made the manumission of slaves
a prerequisite to _communion with the Church of CHRIST_.’
“‘O, as to that, we grant that it is a _new term of communion_, not made
by _Christ_ or the _apostles_. We expressly state in the law itself that
it is _new_, and express our regret at the necessity for its enactment.’
“‘Then what if I respectfully decline to acquiesce in your _new terms of
membership_, and prefer to be governed by the old law of Christ?’
“‘Then, sir, after two years you can no longer commune with the
Methodists; and if you lived in any other State but Virginia, we would
turn you out in _one_ year. You may be thankful, sir, that you live in
Virginia.’”
“I wonder, said the Planter, musingly, how it happened that Paul forgot,
when writing to Philemon about his slave Onesimus, to tell him that if
he did not file a deed of manumission in the county clerk’s office
within one year, or in two years at most, he would be excommunicated
from the Church, unless he saw fit in the meantime quietly to withdraw,
and go back among the wicked people of the world.”
“Perhaps the Assistant found too many who preferred excommunication to
obedience; for though the law was put forth with so much force of words,
the next Conference resolved to _suspend_ its execution for the present,
and the matter stood thus for over ten years, when the Conference
declared that they _were more than ever convinced of the great evil_ of
the African slavery which yet exists in the United States, and decreed
as follows. Here is the law already referred to requiring the
slaveholder to _be talked to_:
“‘No slaveholder shall be received into society till the preacher who
has the oversight of the Church has spoken to him freely and faithfully
on the subject of slavery.’
“It seems that after being _told_ of the sin, he might bring it with him
into the Church, and keep it there if he saw fit. But slaveholders could
not occupy _official_ stations in the Church without giving security for
the emancipation of their slaves so soon as the laws of the State would
permit; and if any member _sold_ a slave, he was _to be excluded_. If
any one bought a slave, he was to execute a writing to set him free at
the expiration of a time fixed by the Quarterly Conference, _or be
excluded._
“In 1804, the Conference passed an act declaring that ‘the members of
our societies in the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
and Tennessee _shall be exempted from these rules_.’ So that what in
_other_ States was so great _a sin_ as to _exclude men from the Church_
of Christ, was in _these four_ favored States _no sin at all_, or at
least none that required the attention of the Church of Christ.
“This law was changed again in 1808, so as to permit and authorize each
of the _Annual_ Conferences to make their own regulations relative to
buying and selling slaves.
“And in 1820 this was repealed, and other enactments made, which have
since been remodelled again, until the chapter on slavery as it now
stands in the Discipline was ordained. When the Conference North or
South will see fit to enact some _other new terms of membership_ in
relation to this subject, no one can tell.”
“Let us thank God,” exclaimed Mr. Percy, “that the terms of communion in
the true Church were made by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and must be
always what they have ever been. The Church that changes then is not a
Church of Christ. But what has all this long story about slavery to do
with our investigation?”
“I introduced it,” said Mr. Courtney, “merely as _one_ of many instances
in which the Conference has claimed and exercised the right to _make
laws_ and change laws for the Church, affecting even the right to
membership, and in which the Church had recognized its right, and thus I
show _that she has OTHER lawgivers_ besides Christ.
“I might have showed you this from her changes of her laws concerning
baptism. In her first Discipline the Conference said, ‘Let every adult
person and the parents of every child to be baptized have their choice
either of immersion or sprinkling,’ [nothing said of pouring,] and let
the elder or deacon conduct himself accordingly.
“Some years after this, in 1786, it was decreed that _pouring_ also
might be used; and the same authority that left out _pouring_ at first,
may, if pouring be a mode of baptism, with equal propriety leave out
_immersion_ at the next meeting.
“In their first Discipline a law was made _authorizing_ and _requiring_
the _rebaptism_ of certain persons, but _now_ you have no such law.
“‘Question 46. What shall be done with those who were baptized in
infancy, but now have scruples concerning the validity of infant
baptism?
“‘Answer. Remove their scruples by argument if you can; if not, the
office may be performed by immersion or sprinkling, as the person
desires.’
“In 1786 this was repealed; so that if a Methodist preacher should _now_
venture to be an Anabaptist, [rebaptizer,] he does it on his own
responsibility, and without authority of either the word of God _or the
Discipline_.
“But why need we delay upon the application of our test? The Roman
Catholic Church itself is not more abjectly subject to the popes and
councils than is the Methodist Episcopal Church to the bishops and
Conferences. In fact, in almost every essential feature of their
_organization_ there is a remarkable resemblance between the two.”
“I have,” said Mr Percy, “been struck with that fact as we have gone
along, and have amused myself by drawing a parallel between them, thus:
The Roman | The Methodist Episcopal Church.
Catholic |
Church. |
--------------+------------------------------------------------------
1. Its | 1. Its government is episcopal. It is ruled by
government is | bishops.
_episcopal_, |
or the rule |
of _bishops_. |
2. Its laws | 2. Its laws are made for it by the bishops and
are made for | Conferences.
it by the |
popes and |
councils. |
3. Its laws | 3. Its laws are executed by the preachers.
are executed |
by the agency |
of the |
priests. |
4. The people | 4. The people have nothing to do with the making or
have no share | the execution of their laws.
in the making |
or the |
execution of |
their laws. |
5. The pope | 5. The bishop is elected by the preachers.
is elected by |
the |
cardinals. |
6. The pope | 6. The bishop sends the preachers to any appointment
sends the | that pleases him.
priests to |
any |
congregation |
he sees fit. |
7. The people | 7. The society must receive the preacher sent by the
must have the | bishop, or have none.
priest that |
is set over |
them, or |
none. |
8. The people | 8. The people have no voice in deciding who shall be
have no voice | received as members. It is done for them by the
in | class-leader and the preacher. For although since
determining | 1840 there is an examination in the presence of the
who shall be | society of the candidate for _full_ membership, he
received as | must have been _recommended_ by the _leader_, and it
members it is | is the preacher who _decides_ whether the examination
decided by | is satisfactory, and receives him.”
the priest. |
“Well, I declare,” exclaimed the Methodist lady, “we ought to be obliged
to you for your good opinion of us. I have always understood that we did
not stand _very_ high in the estimation of Baptists, but had no idea
before that you counted our bishops no better than the pope, and our
people no better than Roman Catholics.”
“Excuse me, madam, but I neither said nor meant any such thing. I say
nothing at all of the _personal_ goodness or badness of your bishops or
your people. They may be, and I have no doubt many of them are,
devotedly pious, self-denying men. It is not the _personal character_ of
you ministers or members that I am speaking of, but of the
_constitutional_ character of that _organization_ called the ‘_Methodist
Episcopal CHURCH_.’ And of _that_ I _do_ say, and I wish that every
Methodist in all the land could hear me say, and would by hearing be led
to examine into the subject, and see for himself if I do not tell the
simple truth when I say that in these eight particulars, at least, it is
remarkably similar to that of the Roman Antichrist, the MAN of SIN and
SON of PERDITION.
“I might extend the parallel much farther, but I have confined it to the
point we are now investigating, that is, whether the Methodist
societies, as such, _have any other lawgiver but Christ, and are obliged
to submit to any other government than his._”
“I think, sir,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “that you rather
exceeded your authorities when you added your _last_ item to the
parallel which you arranged with so much lawyerlike ingenuity. The
testimony, sir, will not sustain _that_ allegation, whatever may be the
case with the other seven. Look at the Discipline, sir: you cannot
surely be so blind as not to discover that it gives to the society
itself the right to judge as to who shall be full Church members; for
otherwise, why should the Discipline provide that the candidates should
be examined ‘_before_ the society?’ If the preacher is sole judge of the
matter, why bring it to the notice of the society at all?”
“I do not know, sir, unless it were for the mere purpose of deluding the
members with the idea that they have some sort of power, while, in fact,
they have none. If you think I misunderstand the purport of the
Discipline, perhaps you will admit the explanation of your own bishops.
In their notes on the Discipline, (chap. i., sec. 10,) as quoted by your
own brother, Emory, in this ‘History of the Discipline,’ pp. 304–307,
we read, ‘5. He [the minister] is also to receive members on trial, and
into society, according to the form of Discipline. _If this authority
were invested in the society,_ or any part of it, the great work of
revival would soon be at an end.’… ‘Glory be to God, all our societies
throughout the world, now amounting to upwards of one hundred and sixty
thousand, have been raised under grace by our _ministers and preachers_.
_They_ and they _only_ are their spiritual fathers under God, and none
can feel for them as _they_ do. It is true that on great revivals the
spiritually halt, and blind, and lame, will press in crowds _into the
Church of God_; and they are welcome to all that we can do for their
invaluable souls, till they prove unfaithful to convincing or converting
grace. And we will not throw back their souls on the wicked world, while
groaning under the burden of sin, because many on the trial quench their
convictions, or, perhaps, were hypocritical from the beginning. We would
sooner go again into the highways and hedges and form new societies, as
at first, than we would give up a privilege so _essential to the
ministerial office_, and to the revival of the work of God.’… ‘The
Master of the house [God] said to his servant, Go out quickly into the
streets and lanes of the city, and “_bring in hither_ the poor, and the
maimed, and the halt, and the blind; and the servant said, Lord, it is
done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.” He obeys his God
_without asking permission of ANY SOCIETY_ whether he should obey him or
not And the Lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and
hedges and _compel them to come in_, that my house may be filled. Luke
xiv. 21–23. The servant answers not his Lord, I will comply with thy
command so far as MY SOCIETY or my leaders and stewards will permit
me.’… Again: ‘Now what pastors called and owned of God would take upon
themselves this awful responsibility [that of the pastoral office] if
OTHERS could refuse to their spiritual children the grand, external
privilege of the gospel, or admit among them the most improper persons
to mix with and corrupt them? Truly, whatever the pastors of other
Churches may do, we trust that ours will never put themselves under so
dreadful a bondage. It is in vain to say that others may be as tender
and cautious as the pastors; for the _pastors_ are the persons
responsible to God, and, therefore, should by no means be fettered in
their pastoral care.’ And again: ‘If ministers are to be the judges of
the proper subjects of _baptism_, which is the grand initiatory
ordinance into the visible Church, how much more should they have a
right to determine whom they will take under their own care, or whom God
has given them out of the world, by the preaching of his word. For
ministers to spend their strength, their tears, their prayers, their
lives, for the salvation of souls, and [then] to have both themselves
and THEIRS under the control of those who never travailed in birth for
them, and, therefore, can never feel for them as their spiritual parents
do, is a burden we cannot bear. Thus it is evident that both reason and
Scripture do, in the clearest manner, make the privilege or power now
under consideration [that of receiving members into the Church]
_essential_ to the gospel _ministry_.’
“I trust you will not accuse your own BISHOPS of misapprehending the
design and the practical working of the system.”
“I think,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “that we may venture to pass on to our
next _test_ or _mark_. We are spending more time than we need to occupy
with this. The _main fact_, that is, that the Conference has power to
make laws which the members must obey, or cease to be members of the
Church, will not be disputed; and that is all that is essential to our
present purpose.”
“What is our next test, Mrs. Percy?”
“It declares that in a true Church all its members must have become
such, not by birth, not by the act of their parents, not by a law of the
State, _but by their own voluntary act._”
“If, as we have seen, infants are made members of this Church by
baptism, it is certain that she has not this mark; but, as she virtually
repudiates her own act, and denies in practice her own teachings, I
hardly know,” said Mr. Percy, “whether to mark her black or white on
this test.”
“We have determined already,” said Mr. Courtney, “from their own
authorities, that they themselves consider the baptized infants as
Church-members; and it is on this ground, and for the very purpose of
making them Church-members, that they baptize them. Now, if they make
them Church-members, and then practically disown them, by refusing to
permit them to enjoy the privilege of membership, this shows their
inconsistency; but it cannot disannul the act which makes the children
of the Church members, or make them _not_ Church-members. _We_,
therefore, must count them members, although they who received them, and
made them such, see fit to ignore their own act, and treat them in all
respects as though they were not and never had been.
“It is only one of the many inconsistencies into which Pedobaptism
drives those who practice it. The Methodist Church is guilty of the
double inconsistency of receiving to her communion, and treating in all
things _as though they were_ Church-members, those whom they say _are
not_, namely, the seekers, and of shutting out from their communion, and
treating in all respects _as though they were not_, those who they say
_are_ Church-members, made such by baptism in their infancy. We cannot
stop to reconcile them to themselves; and they would not probably thank
us for our trouble, if we should try to do so. Let us hasten on with our
investigation.
“What is the next mark, Mrs. Percy?”
“It requires that a true Church _shall hold as articles of faith the
fundamental doctrines of the gospel_.”
“Here,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “we shall need your assistance, neighbor
Stiptain, unless my friends are more familiar with the doctrines of your
Church than I am. I know that it is generally counted among the
so-called evangelical or orthodox Churches, and that many of its
ministers and members give evidence of devoted piety; but what your
standards may teach as Christian doctrine, I am not so well informed;
and you know, in such a discussion as this, we can only recognize those
as the doctrines of any Church which that Church herself acknowledges
and publishes by her own acts. Perhaps you will do us the kindness to
tell us where we can find a statement of your acknowledged doctrines.”
“With the greatest pleasure, sir. You will find our articles of faith in
the Discipline; and what are not mentioned there, in Wesley’s Sermons
and Watson’s Institutes, and other works published by consent or order
of Conference. Our Brother Gorrie has well said, in his History of
Methodism, (p. 135:) ‘The doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal Church
are principally embraced in the twenty-five Articles of Religion, found
in the Book of Discipline. These articles are nearly the same with those
of the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the
United States.’
“When the Reverend John Wesley set apart Dr. Coke to the office of
Superintendent of the societies in America, and instructed him to
organize said societies into an independent Church, he prepared a
Prayer-book, or Sunday service, for the use of the infant Church, in
which Prayer-book the Articles of Religion were contained as now found.
excepting the one relating to rulers, which was framed at the
organization of the Church in 1784, and shortly after was printed in the
form of Discipline; since which time no change of any importance has
been made in the articles referred to.’ ‘We have stated in substance,’
our brother goes on to say, ‘that these Articles embrace the _most_ of
the doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal Church. We do not say that all
the doctrines of the Methodists are clearly set forth in the same.…
Still, what is not clearly stated and taught in the same is stated and
taught in the _other standard writings of the Church_, such as Wesley’s
Sermons, and Watson’s Institutes.’”
“It occurs to me,” said Mr. Percy, “that in regard to the other
claimants whom we have already tried by our rules, we asked but one
question under the present head, and that was, Whether they held that
salvation is by faith alone, or whether they held to a sort of
_sacramental_ salvation through or by the observance of the ordinances
of the Church? It is very true that this is not all that is essential to
Christianity; but as this doctrine is contained in the very annunciation
of the gospel, we have taken it for granted that if this were wanting,
all else would be but vain pretension. Now, in the Roman Catholic Church
there is an open avowal of the necessity of works and sacraments for
salvation. And while the Church of England, in the form of words used in
her Articles of Faith, teaches that we are justified by faith only, and
not for our own works or deservings, her liturgy and many of her
ministers evidently teach, and her people believe, that we can come into
that relation to Christ which is expressed by faith, and which secures
salvation, _only by means of the sacraments of the Church_; and as this
exalts the reception of the sacraments to the condition of _an essential
means of salvation_, so that no one can have any assurance of eternal
life who has not been baptized, and thus properly qualified for heaven
_by_ _the priest_ and his ceremonies, we were disposed to doubt whether
the High-Church party of the English Church really could be said to hold
this fundamental gospel truth; and, consequently, we marked her but half
white. Now, the question may arise, whether a large portion of the
Methodist Church do not hold the same error, in much the same form. Do
they not hold, for instance, that baptism, instead of being the _sign_
that the person baptized professes _already to have been born again_, is
the _means_ or _instrumentality_ by which he _is_ born again? Do they
not hold and teach the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and
consequent baptismal salvation?”
“I never heard that they did,” said the Doctor, “and do not see why you
should have any suspicion that such is the case.”
“Simply,” replied Mr. Percy, “because I find this doctrine plainly
taught in express words in those books which they are constantly
publishing, and their preachers are daily scattering all over the
country, as their standards of doctrine.”
“I wish you would tell us what books,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain,
“for I am sure no _Methodist_ author could publish such sentiments
without being at once repudiated by the Conference. Baptismal
regeneration is certainly no part of our creed.”
“So Mr. A. Campbell _says_ it is no part of _his_, and yet he uses such
words in telling what he _does_ believe that candid inquirers cannot
understand him to mean any thing else. And just so, you will permit me
to say, the acknowledged standards of your Church use language of the
same sort; insomuch, that if it does not mean to teach the doctrine that
_baptism is for the ACTUAL washing away of sins_, (and not merely the
symbol which signifies that they _have been_ washed away,) I do not know
what it does mean.
“If _I_ should tell _my_ people that by baptism they were admitted _into
the Church_, they would understand that I meant what I said; that I
intended to affirm, and did affirm that it was by baptism that they were
made Church members, and that in such a sense, that if they had _not
been baptized_, they would not have been Church-members. And then if I
should go on and say, further, that in the ordinary way there was no
other means but baptism of entering into the Church, _or into heaven_,
they would still understand that I meant what I said, and that I
intended to teach, and _did_ teach, that as they could not enter _the
Church_ without baptism, no more could they enter _heaven_ without it.
If _I_ should say that we, who were by nature the children of wrath,
were made the children of God _by baptism_, you and all who heard me
would think I meant just what I said.
“If _I, or any Baptist,_ should say that we are _regenerated_ and _born
again_ by the _water of baptism_, people would think we meant what we
said; and I am sure they would have good reason to suppose that we
believed in and taught baptismal regeneration.
“If _I, or any Baptist,_ should say that infants in the ordinary way
could not be saved unless their original sin be washed away by baptism,
you would think we meant to teach the doctrine of _baptismal salvation_.
“And now, if I should write a tract, or a sermon, and the Baptist
Churches should direct it to be printed and published, and should
instruct their ministers and their people to give it as large a
circulation as possible, and should send forth one edition of it after
another, earnestly _commending_ it to the Church and to the world, would
you not think that these Churches held and taught the same doctrines
which you would have understood me to teach?”
“Of course we could not help thinking so.”
“How then, let me ask, can you help believing that the Methodist Church
holds these same doctrines? for what I have supposed myself to say, _Mr
Wesley actually did say._ I merely transposed the words. And what I have
supposed our Churches to have done, the _Methodist Church has actually
done_, and is _still doing every day_. The Conference has directed Mr.
Wesley’s tract on baptism to be published; they encourage if they do not
actually require all their preachers to circulate it, and their members
to read it. This tract contains such language as this. I will read it to
you, or you may read it for yourself. You will find it on page 251 of
the volume of Doctrinal Tracts, published by the Book Concern:—
“‘If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects
of baptism, _seeing IN THE ORDINARY WAY THEY CANNOT BE SAVED UNLESS THIS
BE WASHED AWAY BY BAPTISM._ It has already been proved that this
original stain cleaves to every child of man, and that hereby they are
children of wrath and liable to eternal damnation. It is true the second
Adam has found a remedy for the disease which came upon all by the
offence of the first. _But the benefit of this is to be received through
the means which he hath up pointed, THROUGH BAPTISM IN PARTICULAR,_
which is the ordinary means he hath appointed for that purpose, and
which God hath tied us, though he may not have tied himself. Indeed,
where it cannot be had, the case is different; but extraordinary cases
do not make void a standing rule. This, therefore, is our first ground:
_infants need to be washed from original sin, and, therefore, they are
proper subjects of baptism._’
“If Mr. Courtney, or I, or any Baptist, should thus teach that children
or grown people could only be cleansed from sin (whether original or
actual) _by baptism_, and could not ordinarily be saved without it, _we_
would certainly be accused of teaching _salvation by water_. But when
_Mr. Wesley_ does it, some people can see no harm in it.
“So on page 248 you may read as follows:
“‘_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.
Signs or Marks of a True | | Marks of the Methodist
Church. | | Episcopal Church.
--------------------------+--------------+----------------------------
1st. It consists only of | ████████████ | It consists in part of
professed believers in | | baptized infants, and of
Christ. | | unconverted seekers. See
| | pp. 306–317.
2d. Its members have been | ████████████ | Most of its members have
baptized upon a | | not been baptized at all,
profession of their | | since sprinkling and
faith. | | pouring are not baptism;
| | or, if at all, in infancy,
| | without personal profession
| | of faith. See pp.
| | 317–330.
3d. It is a local | ████████████ | It is subject to the
organization, and | | preacher. It cannot even
independent of all | | decide who shall be its own
others. | | members. It is subject to
| | the bishop. It cannot even
| | choose its own pastor. It
| | is dependent for its very
| | existence as a church. See
| | pp. 330–342.
4th. It has Christ alone | ████████████ | It is obliged to submit to
for its King and | | the Laws of Conference in
Lawgiver, and recognizes | | matters affecting even the
no other authority above | | right of Church-Membership.
its own. | | See pp. 342–374.
5th. Its members have | ██████ | It regards baptized
become such by their own | | children as members; and so
voluntary act. | | far, they do not come in,
| | but are brought. Its
| | _acting_ members, however,
| | are those who have been
| | received _again_ with their
| | own consent. See p. 375.
6th. It holds as articles | ███ | It holds and teaches
of faith the fundamental | | salvation by faith; but the
doctrines of the gospel. | | doctrine is disguised and
| | partly nullified by that of
| | baptismal regeneration. See
| | pp. 376–378.
7th. It began with | ████████████ | It was conceived and
Christ, and has continued | | established by Mr. Wesley
to the present time. | | and other _men_, and began
| | in 1784, by the authority
| | of two bishops and sixty
| | preachers.
8th. It never persecutes | | It has never had the power
for conscience’ sake. | | to persecute.
9th. No apostate Church | ████████████ | It was, as coming out of
can be a Church of | | the Church of England,
Christ. | | apostate in its very
| | origin. See p. 401.
“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.’
“Then turn to page 448, and read as follows: ‘When any minister shall
labor under such grievances in his congregation as that he shall desire
leave to resign his pastoral charge, the presbytery shall cite the
congregation to appear by their commissioners at their next meeting, to
show cause, if any they have, why the presbytery should not accept the
resignation. If the congregation fail to appear, or if their reasons for
retaining their pastor be deemed by the presbytery insufficient, he
shall have leave granted to resign his pastoral charge, of which due
record shall be made.… If any congregation shall desire to be released
from their pastor, a similar process, _mutatis mutandis_, shall be
observed.’”
“I think,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “you have clearly made out your case, and
we may pass to the next mark upon our tablet.”
“Which is the _fifth_,” said Theodosia, “and requires that the members
of a true Church _should have become such by their on voluntary act_.”
“But in this Church, as we have seen,” said Mr. Courtney, “they are,
according to the testimony of Dr. Miller, to which I might add that of
others of their standard writers, _born into the Church,_ if they chance
to be born of parents who professed the true religion. It may be more
satisfactory to us, however, to look at the _Confession of Faith_ for
ourselves. If you will turn to page 146, you may gain further evidence.”
“‘Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto
Christ, but also the _infants_ of one or both believing parents are to
be baptized.’
“But does this baptism make these unconscious and involuntary recipients
of it _Church-members_? and that, too, without any additional and
voluntary act of their own? Turn to page 450, and you will see: ‘_ALL
BAPTIZED PERSONS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH—are under its_ care and
subject to its government and discipline; and when they have arrived at
the years of discretion, they are bound to perform all the duties of
Church-members.’”
“That certainly is as plain as words can make it,” said the Doctor; “and
we may pass on to the next test, which is, if I do not forget, that ‘_A
true Church must hold as articles of faith the fundamental doctrines of
the gospel_.’”
“And here, I am happy to say,” said Mr. Courtney, “we can mark this
claimant all white. If every thing about her were as unexceptionable as
her system of theology, we would have little to find fault with. But
when we come to our _seventh_ test, and ask for her _beginning_, we can
only trace the Presbyterian Church of the United States back to 1789, or
five years later than the organization of the Methodist church, at
Baltimore. It was in that year that the establishment was _completed_ or
finished, by adding on to what it had before, that which now constitutes
its peculiar characteristic, that is the GENERAL ASSEMBLY, which
previous to that time had no existence.
“In the year 1788 the Synod of New York and Philadelphia arranged the
present plan of government, by sessions, presbyteries, synods, _and a
General Assembly,_ and, dividing itself into four synods, gave place to
the General Assembly, which met the next year; and thus began the
present order of Presbyterianism in America.”
“But how, then,” asked Theodosia, “can the Presbyterian Church be said
to have begun with _John Calvin, at Geneva?_”
“Just as the Methodist Church began with Wesley, and yet began at
Baltimore. John Calvin suggested, defended, and put in practice, to some
extent, the outline of the system, and the doctrines that have generally
been associated with it. These were condensed and embodied by the famous
Westminster Assembly of Divines; and Presbyterian churches—that is,
churches governed by presbyters and synods—were established in
Switzerland, Scotland, and England; and the ministers and members coming
to America brought their principles with them. Societies were organized
here, and sessions and presbyteries, and then synods, appointed to rule
ever them; and the arrangement was completed at length in 1789, by the
formation of the General Assembly. But, whether we date the beginning of
the system in Philadelphia with the first General Assembly, or at Geneva
with John Calvin, or somewhere else, a hundred or a thousand years
before John Calvin was born, is of no consequence at all to our present
argument. It is enough for us to know that no such system was
established by Christ or the apostles. The Church at Jerusalem was not a
part of something ‘called emphatically _the Church_;’ but was complete
within itself. So was the Church at Antioch, and at Corinth, and at
Ephesus; and so were all the Churches of which we read in the
Scriptures. They each one ruled its own members, and did not submit to
the control of any ecclesiastical bodies outside themselves. They were
subject alone to Christ and to the apostles, speaking in the name of
Christ, and by inspiration of his Spirit: when they performed an act of
discipline, there was no presbytery, no synod, and no general assembly
above them to reverse or confirm the sentence given in the ‘_ekklesia_’
itself. The brother aggrieved was to tell the ‘_ekklesia_’—not the
session, or the presbytery, or the synod, or the general assembly: _such
things as these did not exist_. Christ did not ordain them, and gave no
authority to them. When the _ekklesia_—the local Church—had decided,
that was the end of the matter; nor could its decision be reversed by
any authority but its own. If any of these judicatory bodies, high or
low, existed outside the local Church in the apostles’ days the writers
of the Scriptures neglected to mention them. We may be sure, therefore,
that whenever or wherever a Church was first organized, consisting of a
multitude of local societies, so confederated as to form collectively
that thing called _the Church_, which was ruled by presbyteries, synods,
and a general assembly, it was some time after the completion of the
Scripture-record; and that is all our argument requires.”
“Our next test,” said Theodosia, “is the eighth: _It never persecutes
for conscience’ sake._”
“The Presbyterian Church of the United States, or, perhaps, I should say
_Churches_—for there are now three of them, commonly called the ‘Old
School,’ the ‘New School,’ and the ‘Cumberland’—have none of them, since
the completion of their organization, had the opportunity or inclination
to persecute. The Presbyterian Churches in Europe, where they had the
power, have been thus guilty; and so the Presbyterians who settled New
England were at one time largely imbued with the spirit of persecution.
But the Presbyterian Church proper of the United States, I am happy to
say, has from the first declared that her judicatory ‘assemblies ought
not to possess any civil jurisdiction, nor to inflict any civil
penalties. Their power is wholly moral and spiritual, and that only
ministerial and declarative.… The highest punishment to which their
authority extends is to exclude the contumacious and impenitent from the
congregation of believers.’
“We give them our hand on this, and pass to the next and last of our
tests. _Is it an apostate Church?_ It is not apostate in the sense that
it was once a true Church, and has since lost the characteristics that
made it such; but, like the Episcopal and Methodist Churches, it was
apostate in its very origin. It came out of Rome as truly as either of
the others; and when it came out, it brought with it the baptism of
Antichrist, and the ordination of Antichrist. As the popish councils had
introduced the baptism of babes, with the substituted professions of
sponsors, so they went still farther, and baptized them _without any
profession_ at all, but only on a _promise_ from those who brought them.
The pope had by his decree changed immersion into _pouring_, and they,
instead of restoring Christ’s baptism, went still further, and, on the
authority of that ‘godly, learned man, John Calvin, of Geneva,’ changed
pouring into _sprinkling_, which was never used for baptism before. (See
Dr. Wall, as quoted in first volume, p. 177.) They reformed upon the
doctrine, and reformed upon the manners, and reformed upon the morals of
the Church of Rome; but they did not cast Rome away and go back to the
Bible and search there for the original model, as we have done, and
confine themselves to it; or look for the Church in the wilderness,
where Rome, the great dragon, had driven her, and _receive from her_
that Christian baptism and that Christian ordination _which Rome, as
ANTICHRIST, could not confer_. They were content to protest against
Rome, and denounce its fearful hierarchy, as the very man of sin and son
of perdition; but to this very day they dare not officially declare that
the _baptism_ and ordination of this Antichrist are not true and valid
_Christian_ baptism and good and lawful _Christian_ ordination; for to
do so would be utterly to invalidate their own, since Calvin and his
co-presbyters were all baptized and all ordained by _Antichrist_. The
question came up in 1854, in the New School General Assembly, which met
at Buffalo, whether, as Presbyterians, they could recognize the baptism
of the Roman Catholics as valid Christian baptism; and while they
denounce that Church as the very ANTICHRIST foretold in the Word—while
they know that it has been in every age the great enemy and bitter and
bloody PERSECUTOR of the true followers of Jesus—they did not dare to
decide that it could not and did not _confer the sacraments of Christ_.
Its hands, all reeking with the blood of martyred saints, conferred the
_only_ baptism which those men ever received who _gave baptism to the
Presbyterian Church_; and when they venture to decide that this was not
and could not be _true_ Christian baptism, they, by that act, decide
that _they have never been themselves baptized_.
“The facts concerning this discussion should not be forgotten. The
question which had been referred to the Assembly for its decision was a
very simple one, and to an uninterested spectator would have seemed very
easy of solution. It was in substance this: Is baptism and ordination
conferred by the Church of Rome valid and lawful Christian baptism and
ordination? It was referred to a special committee to examine and
report. The majority of this committee reported that our standards
declare the pope to be _Antichrist_, and the baptism or ordination of
Antichrist could _not_ be Christian baptism or Christian ordination. But
a majority of the Assembly voted for the indefinite postponement of the
whole subject, which was simply a refusal to decide the question either
way. And the reasons given for this course were, that if they ventured
officially and authoritatively to deny that Rome was a true Church, and
her baptisms and ordinations lawful and valid, they would by that act
_officially unchurch themselves_, since their own ordinances came to
them through Rome. If the baptisms and ordinations of Rome are invalid,
then Luther and Calvin were neither baptized nor ordained, and so of all
who constituted the first Churches of the Reformation. If they were
_unbaptized_, then they were not true Churches, since no company of
unbaptized believers, however pious, has ever been regarded as _a
Church_. If their ministers were _unordained_, then, according to
Presbyterian usage and authority, they had no right to baptize or to
ordain others; so the Churches never could have received through them
the ordinances of Christ, and therefore must be now without them.
“If they had said, _We cannot tell_: the people would ask them, _Why?_
for to the simple common sense of any honest mind it must seem plain as
the sunlight that the enemy of Christ, the beast, the dragon, the man of
sin, foretold as Antichrist, who should usurp the seat of Christ, and by
his assumed authority wear out his saints and destroy his people, could
not be Christ’s executive, could not be authorized by HIM to confer HIS
sacraments.
“They therefore determined to postpone the further consideration of the
whole subject, and _cut all notice of it out of their permanent records,
so that the people might forget it_. But the people will _not_ forget
it. The question will come up again. It _must_ be true that popish
baptism either _is_ or else that it is _not_ true and valid Christian
baptism. If it _is_, then the Roman Catholic is the true Church of
Christ, and they were _excommunicated_ in the persons of their founders,
the Reformers. If it _is not_, then they came out of an apostate Church,
and as it had no power to confer Christian baptism, it could not have
given it them, and they had no other. If Roman Catholic popish
_ordination_ was not true _Christian_ ordination, then Luther and
Calvin, and the other ministers of that day, were _not ordained_, and if
unordained could not ordain others, nor confer Christian baptism. If it
was true ordination, then Rome was the true Church, and Luther and
Calvin and their associates were _deposed_ and _excommunicated_, and no
longer authorized to act officially, and all their official acts are,
therefore, null and void. In either case their followers have _no_
baptism, _no_ ordination, _no_ sacraments, and _no_ Church, unless that
may be a Church which has no baptism, or that be baptism which is
conferred by one who is not a minister, which is contrary to the
teaching of the ‘Confession of Faith,’ page 498, ‘Baptism is not to be
administered but by a minister of Christ,’ etc.
“But we need not dwell on this. We have seen enough to understand that
from the very first this Church had not the scriptural characteristics
of a true Church of Christ. Let Mr. Percy finish his diagram, and we
will pass on to the LUTHERAN CHURCHES.
“We need not stop to examine the Methodist Protestant Church, for it is
younger than its mother, whom we have examined, and does not differ from
her in any thing essential to our argument. Nor need we give any
separate consideration to the Cumberland Presbyterian, of which the same
thing is true. And the Lutheran Churches need occupy but little more
time than will be necessary to construct the diagram to show at a single
glance just what they really are.
“Those in this country are the descendants of those in Europe, and like
them, so far as differing circumstances will permit. From them they
received their ordinances and their organization, and if _they_ are not
true Churches, these cannot be. We need only say of them what we presume
their most devoted members will not deny: they not only receive infants
as members, but where they have the power, as in Germany and Sweden,
_compel_ the parents by force of fines and imprisonments to bring their
infants to be made members. They cannot, therefore, endure our first two
tests, nor yet the fifth or eighth.
DIAGRAM OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
Signs or Marks of a True | | Marks of the Presbyterian
Church. | | Church.
--------------------------+--------------+----------------------------
1st. It consists only of | ████████████ | It consists of believers
professed believers in | | and their offspring, and
Christ. | | all persons baptized in
| | infancy. See p. 403.
2d. Its members have been | ████████████ | The children of
baptized upon a | | Church-members are regarded
profession of their | | as members even without
faith. | | baptism at all. P.
| | 403–408.
3d. It is a local | ████████████ | It is a great
organization, and | | confederation, of which
independent of all | | each local society is but a
others. | | part. P. 404.
4th. It has Christ alone | ████████████ | It is ruled by sessions, by
for its King and | | presbyteries, by synods,
Lawgiver, and recognizes | | and a General Assembly. P.
no other authority above | | 405–407.
its own. | |
5th. Its members have | ████████████ | Its members are most of
become such by their own | | them _born_ such without
voluntary act. | | their knowledge or consent.
| | P. 403.
6th. It holds as articles | | It holds for the most part
of faith the fundamental | | to all the fundamental
doctrines of the gospel. | | doctrines of salvation. P.
| | 408.
7th. It began with | ████████████ | It is of comparatively
Christ, and has continued | | modern origin, and came
to the present time. | | through John Calvin and the
| | Reformers of Geneva out of
| | Rome. The American
| | organization was completed
| | in 1789. P. 409.
8th. It never persecutes | ██████ | In Calvin’s day, and
for conscience’ sake. | | afterwards in Europe, it
| | persecuted, but the
| | American organization
| | proper never has. P. 410.
9th. No apostate Church | ████████████ | It was apostate in its
can be a Church of | | origin, as coming out of
Christ. | | Rome, and has never had the
| | characteristics of a true
| | Church of Christ. See pp.
| | 411–414.
“The local societies are not independent, but each makes a part of a
confederacy, which, where it is practicable, is coextensive with the
nation. They have not, therefore, our third mark. And, like the
Presbyterians, they are subject to the rule of ecclesiastical assemblies
above the local Church, and where it is practicable they are joined to
the state, and, like the Church of England, own subjection to the civil
power. Christ is not, therefore, their _only_ king and lawgiver. Its
confession teaches _baptismal regeneration_ as plainly as the
Prayer-book of the Church of England, Wesley’s Sermons, or the
Discipline. And the body of her communicants in Europe (though not in
this country) evidently rely upon a sacramental salvation. It did not
begin with Christ, but came out of Rome in the time of Martin Luther. It
was, like the Church of England, a persecutor in its very beginning,
while Luther himself yet lived, and gave direction to its action. And,
like those we have examined, though it has not apostatized since it
began, it was apostate in its very origin. It has not _lost_ the
characteristics of a true Church of Christ, because it never had them.
It has from the first been destitute of all the characteristics of a
true Church but _one_: it did at one time hold the fundamental doctrines
of the gospel, and many of its members do hold them still.”
“I can hardly feel satisfied,” said Theodosia, “with the character you
have given us of Luther. He may have been led into occasional acts of
violence, but that he was a systematic and deliberate _persecutor_, or
that he sanctioned by his precepts or example the claims of those who
have since endeavored to compel men to receive his doctrines by the
penalties of the civil law, I can hardly believe.”
DIAGRAM OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH.
Signs or Marks of a True | | Marks of the Lutheran
Church. | | Church.
--------------------------+--------------+----------------------------
1st. It consists only of | ████████████ | It consists, so far as
professed believers in | | practicable, like the
Christ. | | Church of England, of the
| | whole population, made
| | members by baptism in their
| | infancy.
2d. Its members have been | ████████████ | Its members have mostly
baptized upon a | | been made in infancy,
profession of their | | before they knew there was
faith. | | a Christ.
3d. It is a local | ████████████ | Each society is but a part
organization, and | | of a great ecclesiastical
independent of all | | establishment.
others. | |
4th. It has Christ alone | ████████████ | It is subject to
for its King and | | ecclesiastical
Lawgiver, and recognizes | | judicatories, and in
no other authority above | | Germany, where it
its own. | | originated, and in Sweden,
| | is connected with the
| | state.
5th. Its members have | ████████████ | Its members are made such
become such by their own | | in infancy, and, where it
voluntary act. | | has the power, by
| | compulsion of the law.
6th. It holds as articles | ██████ | It once held to salvation
of faith the fundamental | | by faith alone. Some of its
doctrines of the gospel. | | members do still, but its
| | standards teach baptismal
| | regeneration, and many of
| | its members trust to the
| | sacraments for salvation.
7th. It began with | ████████████ | It began with Martin
Christ, and has continued | | Luther, and came out of
to the present time. | | Rome.
8th. It never persecutes | ████████████ | It persecuted even in
for conscience’ sake. | | Luther’s day; and in every
| | country where it has the
| | power, if fines and
| | imprisons _Baptists_ to the
| | present day. Pp. 416–422.
9th. No apostate Church | ████████████ | In was, as coming out of
can be a Church of | | Rome, apostate in its
Christ. | | origin, and never has had
| | the marks of a true Church.
“Luther,” said Mr Courtney, “was a very great and, in some respects, a
very good man; and his persecution of others serves to show how very far
good men and wise men may go astray from the requirements of God’s word,
even while they hold and teach that it, and it alone, is to be the guide
of every man, both as regards his faith and practice.
“I wish this blot were not upon his name. I wish that neither he nor
Calvin had procured the death of others, for doing what they themselves
had done and commended; that is, for simply thinking and deciding _for
themselves_ in regard to the teachings of the Word concerning their
religious faith and practice. We may excuse them _if_ we can, or _as_ we
can; but the _facts_ are recorded in letters of blood, and must remain
for ever a perpetual monument of the truth that the Churches founded by
either one or the other were not and could not be true Churches of
Christ; since they both began in blood; and when they had the power to
wield the secular sword, did not spare to plunge it to the heart of
those who ventured to read the Scriptures for themselves, _and differ
from their masters._
“But if you doubt about the facts, you will find an admirable summary of
them in Luther’s case recorded in Orchard’s ‘History of the Foreign
Baptists,’ and sustained by references to the most reliable historical
authorities:
“‘Luther had no great objection to the Baptists in his early efforts. He
encouraged the Muncer of notoriety, who was a Baptist minister, and so
highly esteemed by Luther as to be named his Absalom. Their united
efforts greatly increased persons of the Baptist persuasion. When the
news reached Luther of Carolstadt rebaptizing, [that is, baptizing those
that had only received popish baptism,] that Muncer had won the hearts
of the people, and that the Reformation was going on in his absence; he,
on the 6th of March, 1522, Jew like lightning from his confinement, at
the hazard of his life, and without the advice of his patron, to put a
stop to Carolstadt’s proceedings. (_Maclean’s Mosheim_, vol. iii., p.
45.) On his return to Wittemburg, he banished Carolstadt, Pelargus,
More, Didymus, and others, and only received Melancthon again.
(_Ivimey_.).… The success and number of the Baptists exasperated him to
the last degree. He became their enemy, notwithstanding all he had said
in favor of dipping, (while he contended with Catholics on the
sufficiency of the word of God;) but now he persecuted them under the
name of _re-dippers_, _rebaptizers_, or _Anabaptists_.… His half
measures, his national system, his using the Roman liturgy, his
consubstantiation, his infant baptism, without Scripture or example,
were disliked by the Baptists. Yea, the Picards or Vaudois hated his
system, and he hated all other sects.’ (Pp. 344, 345.)
“And again: ‘The tones of authority assumed by Luther, and his
magisterial conduct towards those who differed from him, made it evident
that he would be the lead of the Reformers.’ (_Robinson’s Researches_,
p. 542.) He and his colleagues had now to dispute their way with hosts
of Baptists all over Germany, Saxony, Thuringia, Switzerland, and other
kingdoms, for several years. Conferences on baptism were held in
different kingdoms, which continued from 1516 to 1527. The support which
the Baptists had from Luther’s writings made the Reformers’ efforts of
little effect. At Zurich, the [Lutheran] Senate warned the people to
desist from the practice of rebaptizing; but all their warnings were in
vain. These efforts to check the increase of Baptists being ineffectual,
carnal measures were selected. The first edict against Anabaptism was
published at Zurich, in 1522. in which there was a penalty of a silver
mark set upon all such as should suffer themselves to be baptized, or
should withhold baptism from their children. And it was further declared
that those who openly opposed this order should be more severely
treated. (_Ger. Brandt’s Hist. Ref._, vol. i., b. ii., p. 57.) This
being insufficient to check immersion, the Senate decreed, like Honorius
in 413, that all persons who professed Anabaptism, or harbored the
professors of the doctrine, should be punished with _death by drowning_.
(_Miln. Ch. Hist._, chap. xvi. _Neal’s Hist._, vol. v., p. 127.) It had
been death to refuse baptism, and now it was death to be baptized. Such
is the weathercock uncertainty of state religion. In defiance of this
law, the Baptists persevered in their regular discipline; and some
ministers of learned celebrity realized the severity of the sentence.
MANY BAPTISTS WERE DROWNED AND BURNT. (_Milner_, _Brandt_, _Ivimey_.)
These severe measures, which continued for years, _had the consent of
the Reformers,_ which injured greatly the Lutheran cause. (_Rob. Res._,
p. 543.) It was the cruel policy of Papacy inflicted by brethren.
Wherever the Baptists settled, Luther played the part of a universal
bishop, and wrote to princes and senates to engage them to expel such
dangerous men.”
“But was it not against the so-called madmen or fanatics of Munster,
commonly called Anabaptists, that these severe measures were directed?
Was it not against the disturbers of the public peace, rather than those
who held to adverse sentiments in religion, that these sanguinary
measures were directed?”
“Not at all, madam. All this was years _before_ the Munster rising; and
consequently could have had no reference to that affair. These laws were
passed in 1522. In 1525 there was an insurrection of the peasants, but
they were _Papists_, and not Baptists. In 1520, Erasmus, the friend of
Luther, said of the Anabaptists, (that is, those whom we now call
Baptists.) ‘_These persons are worthy of greater commendation than
others, on account of the harmlessness of their lives; but they are
oppressed by all other sects._’ And it was not till 1535 that the famous
rising at Munster occurred. The disturbances began two years before,
(see _Orchard_, p. 361,) between Lutherans and Papists; and ‘while
things were in this confused state, some persons of a fanatical
character came into Munster, who gave out that they were messengers from
heaven, invested with a Divine commission to lay the foundations of a
new government, a holy and spiritual empire, and destroy and overturn
all temporal rule and authority, all human and political institutions.’
“These were the people who are called Anabaptists by the historians of
those times; and whose excesses and fanatical proceedings were the
occasion of great distress to the Baptists in the succeeding years, and
of much reproach to the denomination even to the present time; and yet
it does not appear that they had more than one single article of faith
or practice in common with those with whom they have been so generally
confounded. They were no more Baptists than the _Mormons_ of our day are
Baptists. The Mormons immerse those whom, they receive into their
community, and the Baptists immerse those whom they receive; yet the
Mormons and the Baptists are very far from being the same people. So it
was with these madmen of Munster: they _baptized anew_ all who came from
other sects to them, and so do Baptists rebaptize, if infant sprinkling
is to be counted baptism; but here the resemblance ceases. ‘They were
for repeating even _adult_ baptism, not performed among them; yea, that
which was administered among themselves when they removed from one
society to another; nay, even in the same community when an
excommunicated person was received again. Besides, if what is reported
of them is true, as it may be, their baptism was performed by
_sprinkling_, which we cannot allow to be true baptism. It is said that
when a community of them was satisfied with the person’s faith and
conversation who proposed himself for baptism, the pastor took water
into his hand and sprinkled it on the head of him who was to be
baptized, using these words: _I baptize thee in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost._’ See _Ivimey_, vol. i., p. 15.
“But whether these madmen were Baptists or not, it was not against
_them_ that these bloody laws were passed, at the request of Luther; for
they were made, and many by their authority were drowned and burnt,
before the disturbances at Munster had been dreamed of. And under
similar laws, our brethren are liable to-day to suffer persecution in
every nation where the Lutheran Church by union with the state has power
to persecute.”
“But what do you say to the so-called CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES, which are
scattered throughout our country?” asked the Rev. Mr. Stiptain. “Do they
come up to your high standard, or rather down to your low standard?”
“They come nearer to it than any we have examined,” said Mr. Courtney,
“but yet they are not true Churches. In so far as they make members of
little babes, they cannot have our _first_, _second_, or _fifth_ mark.
They have the _third_ and _fourth_, and some of them the _sixth_, though
many hold to a sort of sacramental salvation; and some have fallen into
Unitarianism, and denied the Lord that bought them.
“Consisting, as they do, of professed believers, and _their children_,
they are not full examples of the Church founded by Christ, for the
first Churches, as we have seen, were not composed of such materials;
and, therefore, they have not the _seventh_.
“Some of them, in the early settlement of New England, were bitter
persecutors of the Baptists and the Quakers: and _they_, at least, had
not the _eighth_. And as they all received their baptism and ordinances
from the hands of those who had no other than the ordinances of the
apostate Roman Church, and, moreover, have _none_ of them had _all_ the
characteristics of a true Church at any period of their existence, we
will be obliged to count then as we have the other claimants, as
apostate _in their very origin_.”
“It seems to me,” said the Rev. Mr. Stiptain, “that you have now wound
yourselves up so completely in the web of your own tests, that you can
never get out. You have already cut off almost all that claim to be the
Church of Christ, and unchurched almost the whole of Christendom; and if
you apply your rules, and require that a true Church shall be in all
respects what those tests call for, you will cut off every other; and it
must follow that Christ has now no Church on earth, and never has had
since the great Roman apostasy. The Greek Church, and the Armenian, can,
of course, expect no more favor than the Roman Catholic and the English,
and not quite so much as the Presbyterian, and the Methodist, and
Lutheran.”
“As they do not belong to this country,” replied Mr. Courtney, “we will
not need specifically to consider their claims, except we should fail to
find any example of a true Church here.”
“You are not hopeless then? Well, I trust you may succeed; but, for my
own part, I can see no prospect of your doing so. It is time for us to
return home; but if you will all come over to my house on Monday, I will
gladly do-what I can to help you look, and would like to be present at
the finding,” said the Rev. Mr. Stiptain.
“If you will go to meeting with us to-morrow,” said Theodosia, “perhaps
we may be able to show it to you.”
“I cannot do that, as I must attend my own appointment; but we expect
you all to dine with us on Monday, and tell us what you have seen. If it
is a Church which has _all_ your marks, I am almost willing to promise
to join it myself.”
DIAGRAM OF THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH.
Signs or Marks of a True | | Marks of the Congregational
Church. | | Church.
--------------------------+--------------+----------------------------
1st. It consists only of | ████████████ | They consist in part of the
professed believers in | | baptized children of
Christ. | | believers.
2d. Its members have been | ████████████ | Its members have mostly
baptized upon a | | been made in infancy,
profession of their | | before they knew there was
faith. | | a Christ.
3d. It is a local | | Each Church controls its
organization, and | | own affairs, and makes no
independent of all | | part of any ecclesiastical
others. | | establishment.
4th. It has Christ alone | | It is not responsible to
for its King and | | any Lord but Christ, and
Lawgiver, and recognizes | | knows no laws but his.
no other authority above | |
its own. | |
5th. Its members have | ████████████ | Its members were mostly
become such by their own | | made such before they could
voluntary act. | | know what was done to them.
6th. It holds as articles | ██████ | Some do hold the true
of faith the fundamental | | doctrines, and some have
doctrines of the gospel. | | Unitarianism, and some
| | sacramental salvation,
| | baptismal regeneration,
| | etc.
7th. It began with | ████████████ | The Church, which began
Christ, and has continued | | with Christ had no infant
to the present time. | | or involuntary members.
| | These, therefore, cannot be
| | examples of it.
8th. It never persecutes | ██████ | Some of them have
for conscience’ sake. | | persecuted, most of them
| | never had the power, and
| | now would have no
| | disposition to do it.
9th. No apostate Church | ████████████ | They were apostate in their
can be a Church of | | origin, having never had
Christ. | | all the characteristics
| | essential to a true Church.
This was on Saturday evening. The Doctor had been accustomed to go into
the city upon the Sabbath to the Episcopal church; but, in compliment to
his guests, he had ascertained that it was the time of the regular
monthly meeting at a little Baptist meeting-house not far from his
residence, and had determined to go there.
The services had already begun, and they were singing the first hymn
when our party arrived. After singing, the pastor read a portion of the
Scriptures in a plain and simple manner, and then offered an
extemporaneous prayer in a subdued and earnest voice, which showed by
its natural and beseeching tones that he was in solemn earnest, as he
plead with God that he and his people might not only be led to know but
heartily to do the will of God as made known to us in his most blessed
word.
Then, after another hymn had been read and sung, not by a choir, but by
the whole congregation, he commenced his sermon.
Up to this time, the attention of Dr. Thinkwell had been somewhat
distracted by the contrast which the rude and simple building, the
uncarpeted aisles, the uncushioned and unpainted pews, or rather
benches, and the unfashionable and cheap attire of most of the hearers,
persecuted to the luxurious and tasteful adornments of his city church.
Nor was the contrast less striking between the free and natural
outgushings of the heart in earnest and simple words of praise and
prayer, and the artistic musical parade, and the formal reading to God a
select portion of the Prayer-book.
But from the moment that the preacher announced his text there was no
more wandering of his mind. There was a strange fascination in the tones
of his low yet most intensely earnest voice, and in the gaze of his
large eyes—which, instead of being fixed upon his manuscript, seemed to
be looking right into the very souls of those who sat before him—that at
once enchained all his faculties in an attitude of undivided attention.
The subject, too, was one in which, just at this time, he could not but
feel a most absorbing interest:
Avoidable Ignorance Is No Excuse For Error or For Sin.
_“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, But the end thereof are
the ways of death.”_—PROV. xiv. 12.
The preacher began by saying, “It is a common opinion, that it matters
little what a man believes, if he is only _sincere_; and that it is of
not much consequence what he _does_, so that he does what he _thinks_ to
be right. But such is not the teaching of the word of God; and however
plausible it may seem at the first glance, it has no more foundation in
reason than it has in Scripture. Reason as well as revelation requires
right faith, right opinions, and right conduct, since ignorance will no
more excuse a man, or procure for him an exemption from punishment, if
he break the _natural_ laws of God, than if he violate his _moral_
obligations. To illustrate this, take an event in common life.
“A merchant was about to venture on a distant voyage. He had been reared
on the land, and knew but little of the perils of the sea. His mind had
been engaged in other studies, and he knew little of the art of
navigation, or of the qualities and capabilities of ships. He trusted to
his _agent_ to purchase and equip the vessel, and to employ the officers
and crew. He sent on board his precious freight, designed for traffic in
the distant lands; and when all was ready, one lovely summer day he went
on board himself, and a fair and gentle breeze wafted them quickly out
to sea. O, it was delightful to sit upon the vessels deck, and gaze
abroad far as the eye could reach upon the bright expanse of waters; to
mark the ripple of the waves, and watch the parting foam about the prow,
which told how fast they were progressing towards their destined port.
O, it was grand to watch the setting sun sink slowly down until he
almost rested his glowing check upon the placid ocean, sending across
its surface the gorgeous yellow light which, mingling with the waters,
caused them to resemble that wondrous vision of the Revelation, ‘a sea
of glass mingled with gold.’
“It was a glorious sight, when the sun was gone and the red twilight had
faded, to look up and see the stars of God come out, one after another,
and take their places in the blue canopy of heaven, till all the sky was
bright with twinkling glory, and then to look down and see another
heaven reflected in the deep—not still and quiet as the one above, but
trembling in the gently-moving flood—‘As if each wave had leaped up to
the sky and caught a star, and held it struggling in its cold embrace.’
“The wind is fair, and only strong enough to waft them on in safety. The
merchant is happy; he feels that he is on the way to fortune. He sleeps
in quiet; no dream of storms, of rushing waters, of great sea-monsters,
and dark caverns in the bottom of the deep, disturb his slumber. He
counts his gains, he builds his splendid house, he spreads his sumptuous
feast, he enjoys the applause of his numerous friends. He is a rich, and
consequently a great and a happy man. Such is his pleasant dream.
“But while he sleeps the wind has lulled. That deep and ominous
stillness, which to the sailors’ watchful senses always forebodes the
storm, has spread itself over the sea. The sails flap idly on the mast.
The ship rocks lazily in the slight swell of the subsiding waves.
“The man upon the lookout sees a little cloud. It rises and spreads with
a thousand strange fantastic shapes. All hands are called to fit the
vessel for the coming storm, and scarcely have they done so when down it
comes, screaming and howling across the waves. He hears its shrieks as
it tears its way through the rigging of the vessel; he starts from his
pleasant dream of wealth and grandeur; he rushes out to see what is the
cause of all the commotion which has startled him.
“The storm is upon them in all its terrible strength; but if his ship
were sound, if his officers were competent and his sailors true, there
is no danger, for the sea is wide. There is no hidden rock, and there is
no danger of running ashore; set her before the wind, and let her drift.
But now, for the first time, he discovers that his vessel is old, her
timbers sprung, her planks rotten, and the first blow of the storm has
opened her seams so that the water rushes in on every side. He finds
that the officers, incompetent and timid, have lost all presence of
mind, and know no more what to do than he does himself.
“Now tell me, will God hold back the wind? Will God sustain the vessel?
Will God preserve the merchant or his wealth because he verily _thought
in his heart_ that his agent had been honest, that his officers were
skilful, that his ship was sound, and all things safe?
“Never! never! The natural laws will have their course. The ship goes
down at sea: fishes feed upon the men who risked their lives so
heedlessly, and her rich freight is added to the treasures of the deep.
God will not change his laws because the man was ignorant of them, or
because he disregarded them. If he would have gone _safely_, he should
have provided securely. His vessel should have been staunch, and his
officers competent. He may have _thought_ they were so; but to insure
his safety, _they must have been so in fact._
“So in the gospel of salvation, God requires certain conditions to be
fulfilled in order to make safe the voyage of life. If he would reach
the haven of the sons of God, become a king and priest in the heavenly
Jerusalem, he must comply with the conditions of the gospel. It is not
enough for him to do what _he thinks_ right; he must do what _is right
in fact_. It is not enough for him to _think_ that he does right, but he
must _actually_ do it. If he risks his deathless soul in any other
vessel than the good ‘old ship of Zion,’ if he sails under any other
officer than Jesus, the true and only Captain of our salvation, he has
no right to hope that he will escape the storms and tempests of God’s
wrath. It is not enough that he _means_ to go safely; it is not enough
that he _thinks_ he is safe; it is not enough that he really _believes
that_ he _is_ in the gospel ship and _has_ Jesus for his Captain—it
_must be_ so as a matter of actual fact. If he deceives himself, or is
deceived by Satan, or deluded by his spiritual advisers, it matters not
how honest or how confident may be his conviction that he is safe. His
hopes may be as bright, his confidence as firm, and his conscience as
easy as that of the real Christian—his sun may shine brightly, his
breeze may seem fair, the sea gentle and calm; but when the dark clouds
rise, when God appears in the thick darkness of his anger, and blows
upon him with the horrible tempest of his wrath, ‘then the _expectation
of the wicked shall perish, and his hope shall be like the giving up of
the ghost_.’
“But we are not left to infer this doctrine from what we see in nature:
God teaches it, as plainly and as forcibly as words can speak, in every
part of the Scriptures of truth.
“The Bible gives no license to men to set up their _own_ standard of
duty or of faith, of doctrine or of practice. It is the common complaint
of the Scriptures against those whom God condemns, that they walked
every one according to the imagination of _his own heart_; that they
followed after _their own_ devices. They substituted other things for
the commandments of God. They may have been _sincere_; they may have
been _honest_; they may have _thought_ they were right: ‘For there is a
way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of
death.’ But it is not enough that the way _seems_ right, it must _be
right in fact_. It must not only _seem_ right in _their sight_, but it
must _be_ right _in the sight of GOD_.
“His language is, ‘If thou wilt diligently hearken unto the voice of the
Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in _his_ sight.’ Exod. xv.
16. And again, ‘Thou shalt do that which is right and good _in the sight
of the Lord_, that it may be well with thee.’ Deut. vi. 18. And again,
‘Ye shall not do after all that ye do this day, every man what is right
in _his own eyes_.’ Deut. xii. 8. ‘Thou shalt observe and go all _these
words which I command thee_,… that it may be well with thee when thou
doest that _which is right in the sight of the LORD THY GOD_.’ Deut.
xii. 28.
“God requires certain express and specific acts as the condition of
salvation. If man substitutes some contrivance of his own, however
honest may be his conviction of the efficacy of the substitute, he will
assuredly perish. It may _seem_ right, but the end thereof are the ways
of _death_.
“God says, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.’
And, to show the _nature_ of the faith, he further says, ‘that it works
by love and purifies the heart;’ that ‘If any man be in Christ,’ by this
faith, ‘he is a new creature: old things are passed away, and all things
have become new.’ ‘Except a man be born again, he shall not see the
kingdom of God.’ This is God’s way.
“But _man_ says, ‘If you will confess to the priest, and perform
penance, you shall be saved.’ Another says, ‘If you will be sprinkled in
your infancy, and confirmed by the laying on of the hands of the bishop
when you are so many years of age, and keep all the outward _forms_ and
ordinances of the Church, as set forth in the _Book of Common Prayer_,
you shall be saved.’ Another says, ‘You have no more to do but to go
before the Church, declare your belief that Jesus is the Son of God, be
_immersed_ in the baptismal waters, and _so wash away your sins_, and
you shall be saved.’
“Others, rejecting even the outward and external form of godliness, as
well as denying the power thereof, say, ‘It is enough that you are
correct in your general deportment; that you do not steal, or lie, or
cheat, or swear; that you are no murderer or extortioner, nor guilty of
any vile, abominable, and outrageous sins. It is enough, in short, that
you are a moral and a respectable man.’
“Thus men substitute their _own devices_ for God’s _requirements_. Thus
they forsake the fountain of living waters, and hew out for themselves
broken cisterns that can hold no water. Thus they make the gospel of God
of no effect, by their own contrivances. They may be _honest_, they may
be _sincere_: they may _really think_ and be fully persuaded that in
these things they have eternal life; but it is still true that he that
believeth not on the Son of God shall _perish_. It is still true that
without holiness no man shall see the Lord. It is still true that except
a man be born again he shall not see the kingdom of God. It is still
true that he who is not renewed in the temper and disposition of his
mind; who does not live soberly, and righteously, and godly—denying
himself all ungodliness and every worldly lust—trusting in Christ, and
in him only, for salvation, shall not be saved. _This_ is _God’s_ way.
God’s way is the way of penitence and of faith. God’s way is the way of
love and of obedience. No human substitute will answer in the place of
this ‘Thou requirest not sacrifice, else would I give it. The sacrifices
of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou
wilt not despise.’
“Man may imagine that many things would be agreeable to God, and would
propitiate his favor, but God will _himself_ dictate his own terms of
peace; and we have nothing to do but to follow, implicitly, the _very
letter of his commandments_. While we do this we are safe. When we go
beyond this, or fall short of this, or turn aside from this, we are in
great danger of the wrath of God.
“‘If any man,’ says John, ‘shall add unto these things, God shall add
unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall
take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part
out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things
that are written in this book.’
“‘What things soever,’ said God to his people, ‘I _command_ you, observe
to do _it_. Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish therefrom.’ And you
will find, by examination of the word of God, that some of the most
remarkable and most terrible inflictions of summary punishment by the
direct interference of the hand of God were for sins of thoughtlessness,
forgetfulness, or ignorance; eases in which the offenders might very
plausibly have pleaded that they meant no harm; if, indeed, they may not
have claimed that they really thought they were doing God service.
“Look at the case of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron. God had brought
his people out of Egypt, and had led them through the wilderness to the
foot of Sinai. There he gave them his law, and there he instructed Moses
in what manner he should order the visible worship of God.
“As they were yet to wander many years, they could build no permanent
temple; but in its place they had erected a most extensive and
magnificent _tent_, which they called the tabernacle, or tent of the
congregation. Its curtains were of blue, and purple, and fine-twined
linen and needlework, so arranged that it could be easily set up and
taken down, and carried with them in their journeys. Within it was the
ark of the covenant, covered with gold; the mercy-seat of pure gold, the
cherubims of gold overshadowing it with their wings; the table and the
bowls and dishes, spoons and covers, all of gold. There was the golden
candlestick, the golden altar of incense, and the great altar of
burnt-offering, overlaid with brass. All now were finished; so were the
splendid garments of the priests—of blue and purple and needlework,
woven in with gold; the ephod, the breastplate, and the signet, all were
complete. And Moses had set all in order: had consecrated Aaron and his
sons; and now, for the first time, the regular daily sacrifice was to be
offered up according to the ordinance of God, which was to be repeated
till the great Sacrifice should come.
“When Aaron, assisted by His sons, had offered it, he lifted up his hand
towards the people and blessed them. God accepted the sacrifice, and
showed himself with most peculiar glory in the sight of all the people.
And there came fire from before the Lord and consumed the offering upon
the altar.
“The people had been gazing on this scene with the most intense
interest. It was a time of wonderful things with them, and this was not
the least wonderful. When they saw it they shouted, and fell on their
faces in adoration of the God who had thus accepted their early worship.
“All this was well. Thus far all had been done _as God commanded Moses_,
and farther than this he had _not_ commanded. But two of Aaron’s sons
took each of them a censer, and would make an _additional_ offering,
which the Lord commanded _not_, strange fire which God had not directed
or required. _They_ were priests as well as Aaron. _They_ had been
sanctified and consecrated at the same time that he was; and they might
have thought that while the people were in a devotional frame it would
be well to continue the worship a little longer, and give it some slight
variety. God had not _forbidden_ it, and they might not see any harm in
it. But no sooner did they wave their censers before the Lord than God
smote them, and they died. Fire came out from before the Lord, and
devoured them there in the sight of a the people.
“A similar event happened to Uzzah some ages afterwards. The same ark
which was here for the first time placed in the tabernacle had been
carried about with the people in all their wanderings. It had stood in
Jordan while the people filed past it on their entrance into Canaan. It
had remained there in the place which God appointed, until, for the
wickedness of the people, God gave them into the hand of their enemies,
and the ark of God was taken. God afflicted the Philistines. They were
so much distressed, that of their own accord they sent it home. The
cattle which drew it stopped on the borders of Israel, at Bethshemesh;
and some years after David the king went to bring it up to his own city
with a splendid retinue of thirty thousand chosen men, the flower of his
army. They set the ark upon a new cart and brought it out. And when they
came to a rough place in the road, the oxen shook the ark, and Uzzah
thought it was about to fall, and he put forth his hand and took hold of
it to steady it; forgetting that, according to God’s law, none but a
priest might touch it, and even a priest only after such purification
and preparation as God had commanded; and for this forgetfulness, for
acting on the impulse of the moment, and touching with unhallowed hand
the ark of God, God smote him that he died.
“And a much more fearful punishment than this was inflicted upon the
people of Bethshemesh, where the ark stopped first on its way home from
the land of the Philistines.
“The people received it with _great joy_, and offered sacrifices and
burnt-offerings, but there were some whose unhallowed curiosity led them
familiarly to _look_ into the ark. They were probably not conscious of
any great crime. It was a strange sight; they had never seen the like
before; they might never have another opportunity; and what great harm
could there be in simply looking into the ark to see if possible what
was the secret of its wondrous power? Yet for this, God smote them that
they died, even fifty thousand and seventy men; and the people of
Bethshemesh said, ‘Who is able to stand before this holy Lord God?’
“Another instance teaching the same great lesson is to be found in the
history of Saul. True, the punishment was not immediate death, as in the
other cases; but it was the departure of the favor of God, the loss of
his kingdom, and his final death by the hands of the Philistines.
“This history may be found in the fifteenth chapter of first Samuel.
“God sent Samuel the prophet to Saul the king with an express and
positive command, ‘Go, smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they
have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’ Saul might have thought the
command unreasonable. He might have pretended to be more merciful than
his Maker, as some infidels have done since his day, and said that it
seemed hard and cruel; but he could not and did not fail to understand
the nature and extent of the commandment.
“He set himself with great earnestness to carry it into execution. He
gathered an army of more than two hundred thousand, and set out on his
mission. They smote the Amalekites with a great slaughter; but so far
from doing _all_ that God commanded, he spared Agag the king, and all
the best of the cattle.
“And Saul returned again to Samuel and said, ‘Blessed be thou of the
Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord.’
“He thought he had really done all _that was important_ which the
command required. He had slain the people, wasted their country, and had
only saved a few sheep and cattle, and even these he spared for a
religious purpose.
“‘The Lord,’ said Samuel, ‘sent thee on a journey, and said, Go,
_utterly_ destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them
until they be consumed. Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of
the Lord, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of
the Lord?’
“And Saul said, ‘Yea, I _have_ obeyed the voice of the Lord, and _have_
gone the way which the Lord sent me, and _have_ brought Agag the king of
the Amalekites, and _have_ utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the
people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which
should have been utterly destroyed, _to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God
in Gilgal_.’
“Now, what said the answer of God to him? Was it sufficient that he had
done all that _he_ thought _important_, and in the trifle that he left
undone he had so good a motive? Was it enough to say he had done what
_he thought was for the best_? No such thing. ‘Nay,’ said Samuel, ‘hath
the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in
_obeying the voice of the Lord_? Behold, to _obey_ is better than
sacrifice, and to _hearken_ is better than the fat of rams; for
_rebellion_ is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity
and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath
rejected thee from being king.’
“Thus does God teach, both by precept and example, that what he requires
is simple obedience to his commandments; that which is right in itself,
right in point of fact, _right in the sight of God;_ and not what
sinful, ignorant, fallible _man_ may fully _believe_ to be right.
“God requires _right_ faith, _right_ opinions, _right_ views of duty,
and _right practice_. And he does not leave us to blunder on in the dim
light of _our own_ conceptions of duty, but requires us to come up to
the truth of the gospel, and walk in the glorious sunlight of _his
revelation_.
“He requires us to exert our reason, to employ our talents, to use our
learning, and by every means which he has placed at our command _to
learn what is the true meaning of the Word_; but when we can once learn
what _God commands_, no reason of expediency, no suggestion of
propriety, no authority of Church or state, of kings or bishops, priests
or pastors, can justify even a momentary departure from _the very letter
of his requirements_.
“We may not substitute our reasonings for simple faith, or our self-will
for unquestioning obedience. _We_ may not see any good _reason_ for the
command; but it is not our province to ask _why_ God commands, but only
to inquire if he _does_ command. We may _think_ we see strong and
numerous reasons _in opposition_ to what he ordains; but it is not _our_
place to sit in judgment on our Maker. We are but creatures of a day,
and we know nothing. _He_ is the infinitely wise God, and knows _all_
things. Our business is not to _question_, but simply to _obey_. _This
is, in fact, the HIGHEST REASON_. For if God governs his rational and
moral creatures at all, it is as a moral governor. He takes cognizance
of their character as right or wrong. His government is a government of
law; and being infinitely wise and good, _he cannot make a law which is
not infinitely right;_ and, of course, _any substitute_ for if must _of
necessity_ be wrong, however better it may _seem_ to _our_ weak and
sinful reason. If God is wiser, and holier, and better than _we_ are,
then it is in accordance with the highest reason that we should do what
is right in _his_ sight, and _not_ what is right in _our own_ sight, or
what would _seem_ best according to _our_ judgment. It follows, then,
that if he has required that all believers shall be immersed, in the
name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; if _this_ is the act which was
performed by John upon the Saviour; if this was the act performed by his
own disciples, under his direction, when the Pharisees heard that he
made and baptized more disciples than John; if _this_ is the act which
he directed his disciples to perform on all who should believe even to
the end of the world, there must be the best of reasons for it; and who
will have the temerity to say that it is _inconvenient_; that it is not
_genteel_, that it is _indelicate_; or that from _any other cause it is
IMPROPER, and may be dispensed with_? Have men grown better and wiser
than their Saviour? Are they more sensitive to any impropriety or any
indelicacy than the immaculate Son of God? Will they venture to _change_
the ordinance of _God_, and make the command of _God_ of no effect by
their extreme _gentility_?
“If _God_ commands immersion, will _men_ pretend to say that sprinkling
or pouring a little water on the head is _better_, because it better
_symbolizes_ what _God meant to represent_? as though they could tell
better than God himself what was the most fitting emblem of the thing
which baptism was meant to signify.
“If God commands immersion, and the apostles and early Christians
practiced it; if pouring first, and sprinkling afterwards, were
substituted in its place by man, by the authority of popes, and
cardinals, and bishops, who will have the hardihood, when he has been
informed that such is indeed the fact, to continue to obey _man_ rather
than God? O, not for worlds would I take such responsibility upon my
soul. And whether it be either right or _wise_ to obey man rather than
God, judge ye.
“If God commands to baptize _only believers_, who will have the
presumption to add their infant children also to the law? We may see a
hundred reasons for it; but if God _commanded_ it not, do we not stand
on the same ground with Nadab and Abihu? To the law and to the
testimony: if it be not according to this word, if it be not _in the
commandment_, who will venture to perform in the name of the Lord that
which he hath not required at your hand?
“If God has instituted _only ONE ORDER of pastors or ministers_ of his
word, and has placed them all on an equality, who will have the audacity
to lord it over God’s heritage? to set up a class of bishops above their
fellows, to rule and govern in the Church of God according to _their_
sovereign will and pleasure?
“If God placed the spiritual authority _in the Churches_, in the
assemblies of believers; if _they_ are authorized to receive members, or
to expel, who will undertake to improve upon _his_ plan, and place the
authority in the hands of sessions of ministers, of class-leaders, of
priests, of deacons, of bishops, or popes? _Men_ may see _many reasons_
of convenience or propriety for one course or another; but _they_ have
no _right_ to think what is most _convenient_; _they_ have no right to
think what is most _proper_; they have no right to think what is best
fitted to any particular people, or any particular time. All they should
dare to do, all they have any _right_ to do, is to determine _WHAT DID
GOD ORDAIN; what was the teaching of JESUS CHRIST the KING;_ what was
the practice of the apostles and those whom they instructed.
“Do not tell me that these are trifles—that they are nonessentials. The
word of God knows nothing of any _trifling commandment of Almighty God_.
I know nothing of any _non-essential_ which makes any part or parcel of
God’s laws. Who authorized _you_ to determine what part of God’s
commandment is essential, and what is non-essential? If God thought any
thing sufficiently important to mention it in his law, who authorized
_you_ to say that it is _not_ sufficiently important _to require your
obedience_? Surely you are not wiser than the Omniscient! Shall I set up
my puny intellect, and try to grasp the eternal bearings of the most
trifling precept of God’s law?
“But the very expression ‘_unessential_’ is, in this connection, a
fearful perversion of language; since _what God has once commanded_
becomes, from that very fact, most tremendously essential, for it is
terribly essential that God shall be implicitly obeyed. Saul thought, if
he slew the people he might spare the cattle. They had not sinned, and
it could not be very important about them. This was to him, it seems, a
_non-essential_; but it lost him the favor of God; it lost him his
kingdom, and cost him his life. It was not for _him_ to say what he must
do, and what he might leave undone. God meant what he said; he meant
_all_ he said. He had doubtless a good reason for every part of the
commandment, whether Saul could see it or not. It was not for Saul to
inquire for reasons; God’s command is enough, _without_ reasons; God’s
command is enough, _against_ reasons; or, rather, God’s command is of
itself the highest conceivable reason for every thing, small or great,
which he commands. Never tell me then of essentials, or unessentials.
Every thing that God commands is of necessity essential. _There is,
there can be, no such thing as an unessential in the religion of the
Bible._ If it is _not commanded_, it makes _no_ part of religion. If it
_is_ commanded, it is not for you, or me, or any mortal man on earth, or
any angel in the court of heaven, to say that it unimportant and need
not be observed.
“Let us then, my hearers, be careful that we conform both in our
religious experience and in our Church order to the very letter and
spirit of the law of God. And to do the with any assurance that we _are_
doing it, each man must study for himself this holy book. Here is the
law; here is the ordinance. What is not here may be indeed a
non-essential But if it _be_ here, we may not question; we need not ask
for reasons; we may not conform to the counsels of priests or of
pastors; we want no argument of convenience or propriety for or against.
It is enough for us that we can find a ‘thus saith the Lord.’ But at the
same time it is right and necessary that we should not only look but
_search_ for the true meaning of God’s word. The Saviour says not,
_Read_ the Scriptures, but ‘_Search_ the Scriptures,’ examining with the
greatest care and most intense scrutiny. Dig in its mines of wealth, as
for hidden treasures; avail yourselves of all the helps within your
reach; compare scripture with scripture; obtain the sense of the word as
it was written in the original language, so far as it is practicable to
do so; and learn it not to gratify a prurient curiosity, but simply
_that you may obey_. Let the language of your heart and of your life be,
‘Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?’ ‘All that the Lord hath said, that
we will obey.’ ‘Ye shall not do that which is right in your _own_ eyes,
or in the eyes of priests, pastors, teachers or bishops, cardinals or
popes; but ye shall do according to _this commandment_—that which is
right in the sight of the Lord thy God, that it may be well with you,
that you may live and not die.’
“God grant us all obedient hearts, and a true knowledge of his way, for
Christ’s sake! Amen.”
When the preacher had finished his discourse, he remarked that there was
some business requiring the action of the Church. While the congregation
sang a hymn he came down from the pulpit, and took his place as
president or chairman of the Church-meeting, and announced that at the
last meeting a certain brother had been found guilty of unchristian
conduct, and he had been instructed to see and converse with him, and
ascertain whether he showed any symptoms of repentance, and induce him,
if possible, to appear before the Church, and make such confession as
would remove the scandal of his offences from the Church. He had seen
and conversed with him, but he pertinaciously refused to make any
acknowledgment of wrong, or to appear before the Church.
“I move, then,” said an aged brother, “that we, as a Church, formally
withdraw from him our fellowship, and count him as no longer one of us.”
The motion being duly seconded, and briefly discussed, was unanimously
carried, and the clerk so entered it upon his record.
“If there are any persons present,” said the pastor, “who desire to
unite with us by letter from other Churches, or by profession of their
faith and baptism, let them come forward while we sing.”
One young man came up and took a seat near the chairman. He was much
affected by the responsibility which attended the act he was about to
perform, and could not restrain his tears.
When the singing had ceased, the pastor remarked, probably for the
information of the strangers who were present, and who might be presumed
to be ignorant of Baptist usage, That the word of God required but one
prerequisite for admission into the visible kingdom and Church of
Christ, and that was _personal and saving faith in Jesus Christ the
Saviour_. But as—according to Romans xiv. 1, “Him that is weak in faith
receive ye”—it is the duty of the Church to decide whether they have
this faith, and not to reject any, even though their faith be weak, so
it is the duty of the Church to refuse those whom she may judge to have
no faith. We are, therefore, accustomed to require of those who ask
admission among us such an explanation of their views and feelings, and
such an account of their religious experience, as will enable the Church
to judge whether they truly have any portion of that real and saving
faith which works by love, and purifies the heart and brings forth good
fruit in the life. This is the more needful, since persons are often
self-deceived, mistaking a temporary concern about their soul’s
salvation for genuine conversion to God, and the regeneration of the
Spirit. We do not receive people into the Church or baptize them in
order that they may be born again, and made the children of God; but
because they give us satisfactory evidence that they have already been
born of God, already belong to Christ, and are already qualified, by
their love to him and to his people and his cause, to take part in the
privileges and responsibilities of his visible kingdom. Baptism is with
us a mere formal, official, and public _recognition_ of a previously
existing fact, which is symbolized in the ordinance, namely, that the
person baptized has died unto sin, as Christ died for him, and has
arisen to a new life of righteousness, as Christ came forth from death.
He then proceeded to ask the young man such questions as would elicit
the evidence of his conversion to God. And when his answers were not
loud enough to be heard by all the Church, he repeated the substance of
them, so that all might be capable of judging.
When he was satisfied for himself, he inquired if any member wished to
ask any thing more; and, as no one spoke, a motion was made and
seconded, to the effect that the pastor be authorized to baptize him,
and that after his baptism he be received as a member of the Church. The
votes being taken, and found unanimous, the congregation adjourned to
the neighboring stream, and there he was baptized in the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and on coming up from the water, the
members gave him at once the right hand of fellowship, in token that
henceforth they counted him as one of themselves.
Scarcely a word was spoken by our little party as they returned home.
The solemn scene which they had witnessed called up to the minds of Mr.
Percy and Theodosia a crowding host of sad yet tender and pleasing
recollections and emotions, which could find no utterance in words. Dr.
Thinkwell was debating in his own mind whether he had not done wrong by
refusing at once to go up and unite with this little company, as the
true Church of Christ; but while he could see at a glance that it had
_most_ of the marks which in the Scriptures they had found to
characterize a true Church, yet there were one or two which he could not
at the moment, and with the information he then possessed, feel certain
that it could certainly claim; but when he came to reflect, he found
that these were such as _did not depend ENTIRELY upon the Scripture_,
though they were scriptural marks, and it had been distinctly understood
and expressed, when they were making up the tablet, that a true Church,
though it must possess these marks, could be easily known without them.
These were the last three tests, each of which requires some knowledge
_of history_ to make its application certain. He comforted himself,
however, with the reflection that one month’s delay would not probably
be of very great consequence, and would give him the opportunity to make
his investigation complete in every particular, and his decision, as a
consequence, final, and subject to no annoying _doubts_; and doubts had
thus far been the bane of his religious life—not doubts about his own
acceptance in Christ, but uncertainty about what was _his duty_ to
believe and to perform.
TENTH DAY’S TRAVEL.
In which the Church is found and identified.
THE Presiding Elder owed his high standing and influence as much to his
never-failing suavity of manner, his imperturbable good-humor, and the
possession of a comfortable estate, as to his intellectual vigor or his
extensive information. He had a ready mind, and could usually give a
plausible reply to any argument that seemed to bear against the opinions
he espoused; and it was not to him a matter of much moment whether
others were satisfied with his reasoning or not. He cared very little,
in fact, what opinions other people held: he had no conception that it
was of any great consequence whether they or he were right or wrong.
Indeed, he thought it doubtful whether _all_ were not wrong. He was sure
that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in his system, but
yet he had never thought of abandoning the system; and as the more he
examined it, the more its inconsistencies appeared, he would not
earnestly and carefully look into it, but contented himself by defending
those points which others assailed; and this he usually did by a resort
to raillery and ridicule, rather than to sober reason and earnest
logical argument.
As he had no hope of making a Methodist of any of the company with whom
he met at Dr. Thinkwell’s, he was not very each concerned about the
result of their investigations, and was prepared to hear, with equal
indifference, that they had decided that any one or another of the
_branches_ of the Church was, in their estimation, the true _ekklesia_
of Christ.
It was, therefore, a source of no annoyance to him, when they met at his
house on Monday, to hear the Doctor say that he was _almost_ convinced
that he had at last discovered the object of his search, in the simple,
unpretending body of Christian people with whom he met upon the Sabbath.
“I grant you,” said the elder, “that if _your marks_ or _tests_ are
reliable, the Baptist Church has more of them than any other; and I
suppose, as the majority of your company are Baptists, you purposely
framed them so that they might admit that organization, and exclude all
others. I will not contend with you, or these friends, upon the
applicability of your tests; but if I had been with you from the
beginning, I would have objected to the tests themselves.”
“There were those with us, sir, who did object to them. Nay, we
ourselves at first objected to some of them, and we received and entered
on our tablet not one until we had carefully examined the word of God in
regard to it, and were compelled to admit that it was in strict
accordance with the requirements of the Scriptures; and so, I think, you
would have done had you been present.
“In the first place, we could not avoid conceding that the apostles must
have known what Christ desired and intended concerning the institution
which he called the Church; and that in every thing essential to its
existence and its order, its constitution and its membership, they would
conform the Churches which they founded to the model they had received
from him.”
“Certainly, sir, that is all self-evident.”
“Then, sir, we could not help seeing that the Church of Christ _is, and
must be now_, in its organization and membership, in its constituent
materials, and in its constitutional _order_, its permanent offices and
ordinances—in short, in _all_ that necessarily belongs to it _as a
Church_, just such an institution as those which the apostles founded,
and of which we have the accounts in the New Testament Scriptures.”
“I grant all that,” said the Rev. Mr. Stiptain. “I see that, so far, you
stood upon solid ground. It is not worth while to question that which is
self-evident. But, then, there are still two sources of error into which
you may have fallen, and by which your conclusions may have been
vitiated. You may, in the first place, have mistaken what was merely
_accidental_ and _temporary_, and, consequently, _unessential_, for what
was designed to be perpetual, and always and everywhere the same. Then,
in the second place, you may have _misapprehended_ what were the _real
characteristics of the apostolic Churches_.”
“We were conscious, sir, of both these dangers, and endeavored to guard
against them with most scrupulous care. First, in regard to what was
_really essential_, we determined that there could be no Church _without
members_. Members were, therefore, _essential_. And as these members
_must have a certain character_, there must be _something_ that
distinguishes them from other people who are not members. Therefore, we
concluded that the _character of the membership_ was another essential,
at least in those particulars in which the first Church members
invariably differed from those who were not Church members. Thus far,
surely we were safe. Then it seemed to us self-evident, as it must have
done to you, and every other man of common sense, that there could be no
Church without some sort of _organization_. The members must be united
upon some formal basis. The Church was a body—a community, a society. It
was not only an assembly, but an _official_ assembly, with certain
duties to perform, certain privileges to enjoy, certain objects to
accomplish; and this, of necessity, required some basis of organization,
or, in other words, some _written_ or _unwritten constitution_. This
constitution must determine the conditions of membership, the relations
of the members to each other, and of each of the local societies to each
of the other local societies and to all of them, and of each and all of
them to Christ their head. Whatever the Master determined in regard to
such matters as these must evidently be regarded as _perpetually
essential_; for it is inconceivable that _human wisdom_ should ever be
able to mend that system by which the apostle says the _wisdom of GOD_
was made manifest to the principalities and powers in heavenly places.
You may take our tests now, one by one, and see if any one has reference
to a matter that was not _essential_ to the _being_, the _constitution_,
or the _continuance_ of the Church.
“Then, to guard against all danger from the _other_ source which you
indicate, namely, that we might have mistaken what _were_ the real
scriptural characteristics of the apostolic Churches in regard to these
essential points, we took care first to exclude all the testimony of
mere _tradition_, or even of history, and then all the assertions of
even the most learned doctors, _as to what these characteristics were,_
and regarded no one as established until _we had found it for OURSELVES_
plainly and unmistakably recorded _in the word of inspiration_. What
better could we possibly have done?”
“But, my dear sir, do you not admit that _you are fallible_, and that
your friends are so; and, consequently, you and they _may_ have
_thought_ you found in the Word things which really are not there?”
“Suppose that were the case. We must still trust to our own conclusions,
and _act_ upon our determinations; since God has made each one of us
responsible for himself. Religion is a personal and individual thing.
Every man must believe for _himself_, and decide for _himself_, and
carry out in his religious obedience what he _himself_ has found to be
the will of God, as revealed in his holy Word. The Word is addressed to
_me_, and _I_ must study it: _I_ must endeavor to understand it for
_myself_, and for _myself_ I must obey; and if I fail, God will hold
_me_ individually and _personally_ responsible. So that, unless I have
so much more confidence in my pastor’s judgment, or in the judgment of
some other person, than I have in my own, that I am willing,
unenquiringly, to risk my soul’s eternal interest in his hands, I must
be governed by _my own determination_.
“But, so far from deciding carelessly or inconsiderately, we have
explored, with all the helps at our command, every inch of the ground,
and are ready now, if it would not take up too much time, to point you
to the chapter and verse in which each mark is designated in the Word.”
“If you should do so,” said the Presiding Elder, “we would be no nearer
an agreement than we are now; for I should doubtless differ with you
about the meaning of the passages, or should be disposed to point you to
others teaching a very different doctrine.”
“One would think, to hear you talk,” replied the Doctor, “that it is
impossible to know any thing certainly about what the Scriptures mean;
but we have found them very plain, and all the time consistent with
themselves, and feel that we may be as certain that they do contain
these essential characteristics of a true Church of Christ, as we can be
that they contain _any_ system of doctrine or of duty. If they are
ambiguous and double-tongued on this subject, it seems to me that men
may as well at once despair of finding what they mean to teach on any
subject; and as we have examined carefully and earnestly, and found the
teaching plain and unmistakable, we must be governed by them, and
consequently must abide by the result of the application of our
_tablet_.”
“I see, then, there is no room for argument against the Baptist Church,
except on some two or three points.”
“It is probably on those same points that I still have some lingering
doubts. I saw at a glance, yesterday, that the Baptist Church with which
I met consisted only of professed believers. There are none born into
it, as Dr. Miller says they are into the Presbyterian Church. There are
none _baptized_ into it without their knowledge or consent, and without
any previous confession of their faith, as infants are into the Roman
Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and
Independent or Congregational Churches. It therefore has the _first_
mark of our tablet. _Its members are all professed believers upon
Christ._
“It also has the _second_. Its members have all _been baptized upon a
profession of their faith_; and as all denominations agree that
immersion is baptism, there can be no doubt about this, arising from the
nature of the act performed.
“So, also, it has the _third_. It is an independent, local organization,
a complete Church in itself, and independent of all others.”
“I do not know so well about that,” said the Presiding Elder. “I was at
a Baptist Association last summer, and for the life of me I could not
see much difference between the relation which _it_ sustained to the
Churches, and that sustained by a presbytery or a conference. It is
merely another name for a great ecclesiastical court. The Methodists
have their quarterly conferences, their annual conferences, and their
General Conference. The Presbyterians have their presbyteries, and their
synods, and their General Assembly; and so the Baptists have their local
associations and their general associations, and their great Convention,
which, like our General Conference, only meets once in several years.
The local Churches are no more independent in the one denomination than
in the other. In all they are under the control of the assembled
delegates, which represent the combined wisdom of all the Churches.”
This was a new phase of the subject to the Doctor, and he knew not what
to say, but turned inquiringly to Mr. Courtney.
“A Baptist Church,” said the schoolmaster, “is, in all that concerns it
own members, as independent of the associations as it is of the
Methodist conference, or of the grand lodge of Odd-Fellows. When a
candidate applies for admission, _it_ alone decides to receive or reject
him. When a member has been guilty of some offence, _it_ tries,
condemns, and excludes him, and from _its_ decision there is no appeal
to any association, local or general, or to any convention or other body
outside itself. What it decides is the decision of _the Church_, and
ends the matter, unless it can be persuaded to revoke its decision, as
Paul besought the Church at Corinth to restore one whom it had cast out.
“The Church is under no necessity to belong to any association, and is
neither more nor less a Church when she does belong to one. Every
association and convention in the land may be dissolved to-morrow, and
no single Baptist Church will have either more or less authority than
she has to-day. But if you dissolve the Conference, that great
ecclesiastical establishment called the Methodist _Church_ is dissolved.
Dissolve the General Assembly, and you have dissolved that great
confederation known as the Presbyterian _Church_, and of which each
local society is but an integral _part_. A Methodist society _cannot be_
a Methodist society except as _a part_ of the great body that is
subordinate to the Conference. A Presbyterian society cannot be a real
Presbyterian society except as it makes a part of that great body which
is subject to the General Assembly. Let either withdraw all connection
with or deny all obedience to the powers thus set over them, and they
become Independents. But a Baptist Church is not of necessity a part of
any association or convention. It gives up no part of its authority when
it sends a messenger, and retains no mire when it refuses or neglects to
send.”
“What then, let me ask, _is_ the Association, and what relation _does_
it sustain to the Churches and their members?”
“Some Baptist associations and conventions,” replied Mr Courtney, “are
organized for one purpose, and some for an other. They are simply
voluntary organizations outside the Churches, formed, like a Bible
society, or a missionary society for the accomplishment of some specific
object, in which the Churches may or may not take a part, as they see
fit. Sometimes this object is to sustain a system of missionary
operations so extensive that some concert of action is required to
secure its success; sometimes it is to build up and sustain an
institution of learning; sometimes to provide young ministers with the
means of acquiring a better theological education; sometimes it is for
the arrangement and support of some plan for the distribution of the
Scriptures or of other religious books; sometimes merely for mutual
counsel, and to learn, by messengers or letters, what progress each
Church is making, what is the number and condition of her membership,
and what she is doing to promote the cause of Christ; and sometime it
combines several or all of these objects. But whatever objects it may
have, it never can have the right to interfere with the domestic economy
or discipline of the Churches, whether of those who send messengers to
it or of others.”
“But let me ask you,” said the Presiding Elder, “whether these
associations are not often called on to decide cases of difficulty in
the discipline of the Churches, which are sent up to them for
adjustment?”
“No, sir; the Churches often send up some notice of cases of difficulty
and ask for _advice_, and sometimes they send questions of difficulty
and ask for _information_ concerning matters either of faith or
practice, and the advice is given and the information granted; but
neither the one nor the other is binding as a law to the Churches. Each
Church may receive or reject the advice, as it sees best.”
“But may not the association punish the Church by exclusion, if it
should fail to heed the advice so kindly given?”
“That would depend upon the relation of the matter to the constitution
of that particular association. You will observe that each association
is a _voluntary_ organization. It makes no part of the Churches, and has
no control over the Churches, except in regard to such matters as are
provided for in the constitution adopted by itself, and voluntarily
agreed to by the parties coming in. And no Church has the _right_ to
give up to the association any of those prerogatives with which Christ
has invested her. She dare not give up to the association, or to the
minister, or to anybody else, the _power of discipline_, which is by the
authority of Christ vested in the _ekklesia_ alone. The constitution of
the association determines the conditions of membership in its own body:
they are as various, almost, as the associations themselves. In some,
for instance, no Church can be represented that does not send a certain
sum of money; and if she fails to make the contribution, she cannot be a
member of the association, but she is no less a Church, and a Baptist
Church, than she would have been if she had sent it. In most of the
associations, it is made a condition of membership that the Church must
be an orderly _Baptist_ Church, and must hold certain doctrines which
are common to the denomination. This is essential for the harmonious
mutual cooperation of them all in the educational or missionary
enterprises for the conducting of which the association was formed. And
when they have such a constitutional basis, and any Church has ceased to
be an _orderly Baptist Church_, or to hold the doctrines specified, they
may refuse to recognize her any longer as a member. But this is no
_ecclesiastical_, no _Church_ action. It is not an excommunication on
the assumed authority of Christ, and exercised by the association as
_his Church_. or as a _part_ or a _branch_ of _his Church_; it is the
mere dissolution of a voluntary compact, when one of the parties has
violated the terms of the compact. _The authority of the association can
never go behind its OWN CONSTITUTION._
“It may be possible that associations sometimes forget this, and act as
though they were not merely advisory, but legislative or judicial
bodies; but if they ever do, they violate all regular Baptist usage, and
thoughtful and intelligent Baptists will at once disown them.
“The truth is, the associations and conventions are the mere creatures
of the Churches, formed for the more effectual execution of the plans
which the Churches entertain for the furtherance of the great objects of
Christian benevolence; objects so vast that individual Churches cannot
alone accomplish them. What _one_ cannot do, some twenty, or fifty, or a
hundred can, and they agree to work together; and that they may work
harmoniously together, each sends a delegate or more, as may be agreed
upon, to carry funds, assist by his counsel, and bring back word to the
Church as to how the work goes on. The association is not, therefore,
like the Conference or the Presbytery, the _lord_ and _master_ of the
Church, but is its _creature_ and its _servant_, and so responsible to
it for its proceedings, that if it does not conduct in all things in
such a way as to give satisfaction, it _withdraws_ from it and gives it
no more countenance or support. But whatever the association may be, or
whatever power it may have, it is sufficient for our present argument to
know that every Baptist Church is so far independent of it, that it is
entirely free to unite with it or to stand apart from it. It is no more
bound to belong to an association or convention, than it is to represent
itself in the Grand Division of the Sons of Temperance, or to belong to
the American Bible Society, or the American Sunday School Union.”
“Then I can understand,” resumed the Doctor, “that it has also the
fourth mark upon our tablet. _It has Christ alone for its King and
Lawgiver, and recognizes no authority but his above its own._ If the
associations and conventions cannot make laws for it, or exercise
discipline for it or in it, I suppose no others will attempt to do so,
unless it be their pastors: and I observed yesterday that the pastor
took no other share in the exercise of discipline, than simply as the
president of the assembly, to put the question and gather the voice of
the members. And, moreover, as the pastor is not sent to them by
bishops, conferences, or presbyters, but chosen by the Church, and holds
his office at their pleasure, he must of necessity be the servant and
not the master of the Church. He may rule, but his government must be
founded in love, and his control such as the faithful performance of his
duties as a good minister of Jesus could not fail to give him in any
assembly of earnest-hearted, Christ-trusting, and Christ-loving people.
“And so, also, I can testify that _its members come voluntarily and ask
for membership_, and are not brought by their parents and compelled to
be initiated, even though they cry out against it as loudly as a little
babe _can_ cry.
“Nor do I see any reason to doubt that _it holds to the fundamental
doctrines of the gospel as its articles of faith_. And have never heard
of any Baptist Churches being engaged in _persecution_, though all the
histories of them that I have read are almost continuous records of the
distress which they have endured from other so-called Christian
Churches.
“I yield them, therefore, the possession of our _fifth_ and _sixth_, and
also our _eighth_ mark; but now when I come to ask about the _seventh_
and the _ninth_, I must wait for further information.”
“And if you wait,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “until you have
traced its continued existence down from the time of Christ, or
ascertained its regular succession in a line of Churches that never in
any age became even temporarily _apostate_, you will wait till you have
joined the Church above. I have not studied particularly the history of
the Baptist Church: but I will venture to promise that if you will make
out this regular succession for them, I will at least never laugh at
them again as the modern progeny of the Munster men in Europe, and Roger
Williams in America.”
“It was our understanding, I believe, when we entered these historical
marks upon our tablet,” replied the Doctor, “that each of the bodies
claiming to be Churches should be considered as having descended
regularly from the apostles, unless the contrary should appear from
their own records. We have seen for each of the others a historical
origin in comparatively modern times. We know when the Lutheran, the
English and American Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, and the Methodist
Churches were first organized. We can trace them back to a certain
point, and beyond that they had no separate existence. They were all
merged in Rome, and only existed as component parts of the great Roman
Catholic antichristian Hierarchy. We have traced this mother of them all
back still farther, and found a time long after Christ or the apostles
when there was not only no Roman Catholic Church, but _no such
organization_ as that afterwards became.
“Now, if we can do the same by the Baptist Church—if we can go back and
find a time since Christ when it had no existence—we must concede that
it has not this test. But unless this can be done, we must take it for
granted, as we were ready to do in regard to the other claimants, that
it has existed from the days of Christ and the apostles. We need not put
it upon the Baptists to show the record of every age, and trace upon it
the history of their Church.”
“In the sense in which you employ the term,” said Mr. Courtney, “there
is not and never has been such a thing as ‘the Baptist Church.’ There
cannot be. Each Baptist Church stands alone and independent of all other
Baptist Churches. As the Church at Jerusalem, and the Church at Antioch,
and the Churches of Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, were not combined
together in any great _confederation_ called the Church, but _each one_
was _the Church_, in and of itself, and neither more nor less _the
Church_ for the existence of the others, so every particular Baptist
Church that is organized upon the same model, having the same sort of
members, the same organization, the same ordinances, and the same
doctrines, is itself _the Church_. It is not a _confederation_ of
Baptist Churches nor a continued _succession_ of Baptist Churches that
is the Baptist Church; but every local, independent body of baptized
believers, holding the doctrines of the gospel, and having the
ordinances of the gospel, that now exists, or has at any time or in any
place existed, is and was _the Baptist Church_ in the only sense that
there can be any such thing as the Baptist Church, or that there was any
such thing as _the Church_ in the days of the apostles. And now, with
this understanding of the term, I am ready to take either plan to show
our continuity from the time of Christ. I will prove, by the most
unexceptional historical authority, by the concessions of our bitterest
opponents and persecutors, that our Churches _have existed_ in every
age. Or I will undertake, as a shorter method of reaching the same
conclusion, to show that there is no other history of their first
beginning but that which we have in the New Testament itself. And if I
can do either one or the other, it will be more than enough. Now, to
settle the question at once, I will take it upon me to trace the Baptist
Churches on the chart of history, either backwards or forwards. We may
begin here to-day and trace them back to John in Jordan; or I will begin
in Jordan and trace them downward till to-day. I anticipated this
difficulty. I knew that a true Church could be known without this test,
ere would not have introduced it but at the suggestion of the Episcopal
bishop; but since we have it, I will not shrink from its most rigid
application. Try us as you will, and you will not find us wanting in any
scriptural feature. I have here a brief sketch of dates and authorities,
which I have arranged merely to assist my memory, and by its aid I will
give you such testimony as cannot fail to satisfy any reasonable man
that Churches have all the time existed, having every essential
characteristic of the little assembly with which we met on yesterday. I
do not say they were called Baptists, or even Anabaptists, which is an
older name, as applied to the Churches; but names are nothing. It is the
_thing_, and not the name, that we are looking for; and the _thing_ is
an official assembly of Christian people, having each of the marks which
we have recognized as the characteristics of the Churches of Christ in
the apostles’ days. Their names have usually been given by their
enemies, and do not designate their character Their names have been
changed for them in almost every century, but their peculiar character
has been the same, and by this, not the name, we must discover and point
them out upon the page of history.”
“I think,” said the Doctor, “I would a little prefer to begin at the
present, and trace them backwards. Thus we did with the other claimants,
and found them all to end in Rome, at the time of Luther’s Reformation.”
“Very good: this is a little past the middle of the nineteenth century.
I suppose no one will question the existence A.D. 1700 to 1800. of the
Baptist Churches now, and since the year eighteen hundred. Both in this
country and in Europe, there are hundreds, nay, thousands of Churches,
and hundreds of thousands of members.
“Nor will it be doubted that they existed in the eighteenth century. A
letter, dated Philadelphia, August 12th, 1714, written by a Baptist
minister, Mr. Able Morgan, to a friend in England, will show their
existence in this country at that time: ‘We are now,’ he says, ‘nine
Churches;’ alluding to those in the vicinity of Philadelphia. ‘In these
Churches there are alone five hundred members, but greatly scattered,’
etc. (_Crosby_, vol. i., p. 122.) And we will presently see that there
were many of them long before this in the New England States. I suppose
it will hardly be necessary to do more than to say that hundreds of our
Churches existed from A.D. 1700 to 1800, in the British Empire, and on
the Continent. Their history in that country is too recent and too well
known to admit of cavil or denial. But when we enter the next age in our
travels up this stream of tie, there may possibly be need of reference
to authorities. It was during this century that the first Baptists came
to America. They were members of a Church of English Baptists in
_Holland_, A.D. 1600 to 1700. having by persecution been driven out of
England, and who came over here in 1620. Cotton Mather, the historian of
the early colonists, says of them, ‘Having done with the Quakers, let it
not be misinterpreted if into the same chapter we put the inconveniences
which the New England Churches have suffered from the _Anabaptists_,
albeit they have infinitely more of Christianity among them than the
Quakers.… Infant baptism hath been scrupled by multitudes in our days,
who have been in other points most worthy Christians, and as holy,
watchful, fruitful, and heavenly people as, perhaps, any in the world.
_Some few of these_ people have been among the planters in New England
from the beginning, and have been welcome to the communion, which they
have enjoyed, reserving their particular opinion to themselves.’
“‘But at length it came to pass that while some of our Churches used, it
may be, a little too much _cogency_ toward the brethren which would
weakly turn their backs when _infants_ were brought forth to be
_baptized_ in the congregation, there were some of these brethren, who
in a day of temptation, broke forth into schismatical practices that
were justly offensive to all the Churches in this wilderness.’
“‘Our Anabaptists, when somewhat of exasperation was begun, formed a
Church at Boston, on May 28th, 1665, besides one which they had _before_
at Swanzey. Now they declared our infant baptism to be a mere nullity,
and they arrogate unto themselves the title of _Baptists_, as if none
were baptized but themselves.’
“In another place, Mr. Mather says that more than a score of _ministers_
had come to the country who were so obnoxious to the body of the
colonists that they could not be tolerated, but that some of them were
deserving of a place in his book for their piety. ‘Of these there were
some godly _Anabaptists_,’ whom he mentions by name. (_Crosby_, vol. i.,
pp 112–116.)
“The existence of our Churches in England, during this century, is
attested by several books which were published by their ministers. One
in 1615, to prove that every man has a right to judge for himself in
matters of religion, and show the invalidity of the commonly received
baptism; and for their opinions on several points of doctrine they refer
to their Confession of Faith, published in 1611. They published another
book defending Baptist sentiments, in 1618, and many from that time on.
But they have not only given this testimony concerning themselves, but
we can trace them in the _laws_ enacted for their destruction, in their
_petitions_ and _complaints_, in the records of the _courts_ and the
_prisons_ in which they were condemned and confined; and one of them, at
least, was _burned at the stake_. It was about the middle of this
century, moreover, that Cromwell made religion free, and thousands of
Baptists came forth into the light, who before had been obliged to hide
from the sword of persecution. ‘Persons of this persuasion,’ says
Russell, ‘filled the army with preaching, and praying, and valiant men.’
When Cromwell afterward, under the influence of Presbyterians,
determined to repress the Baptists, they sent him a memorial or
remonstrance, in which they ask ‘if Baptists have not filled his towns,
cities, provinces, islands, castles, navies, tents, armies, and court.’
But under Charles the Second, they were again subject to persecution,
but still continued to protest against the Hierarchy, and the other
corruptions of Christianity. A.D. 1500 to 1600. “Now let us go back
another century. We have found Baptists in great numbers from 1600 to
1700. How is it from 1500 to 1600?
“The Baptists in the early part of this century were for the most part
called _Lollards_ in England, and Anabaptists and _Mennonites_ upon the
Continent. But they were _Baptists_ in fact, though known by other
names. They were in England many of them foreigners who had been led to
expect, from the rupture between King Henry the Eighth and the Pope,
that they might there be free to enjoy their religion; a mistake of
which King Henry hastened to cure them, as soon as he became the _Head_
of the Church.
“Styrpe, the historian of those times, says, ‘The Baptists pestered the
Church, and would openly dispute their principles in public places.’ In
1539, a general pardon was granted to all religious offenders, but the
_Baptists_ were specially exempted. So numerous were they, and so
rigorously persecuted, that the records show that _over seventy
thousand_ of them were, in King Henry’s time, punished by fines, by
imprisonment, by banishment, or by burning.
“On the Continent, their existence is shown by the persecutions which
they suffered from the Lutherans, as we have already seen.
“Then let us go back another hundred years. A.D. 1400 to 1500. How was
it from 1400 to 1500? We have now, you see, gone back of the times of
the _Reformation_, which occupied the early part of the century we have
just past. We are now where we can find no Church of England, no
Lutheran, no Presbyterian Churches. The Protestants had at this time not
yet protested, and were quietly resting in the polluted arms of their
mother of Rome.
“Now if we still find the Baptists outside of Rome, refusing to
recognize her as a Christian Church, denouncing her as the very
Antichrist foretold in the Word, and by her denounced and _persecuted_,
we will have proved, at least, this much, that the Baptist Churches are
older _than Protestantism_ in any of its sects or creeds, and that they
did not, as charged by Dr. Featly, and reiterated by almost every
Pedobaptist writer since his day, begin with the madmen of Munster.”
“Why do you not go back at once to Peter Bruis and his co-laborer
Henry?” asked the Rev. Mr. Stiptain. “Dr. Wall, you know, admits that
_they_ were Baptists, and expressly says, ‘they were the _first_
preachers that ever set up a Church or society holding that infant
baptism was a nullity, and rebaptizing such as had been baptized in
infancy.’”
“I thank you for your suggestion, sir, though this will take us back at
one step for over two hundred and fifty years. But in all those two
hundred and fifty years the followers of Peter and Henry can be traced
as _Baptists_, and their societies as _Baptist Churches_. It was some
years before 1150 that they appeared. We learn their doctrines from
their A.D. 1150 to 1500. enemies. One who wrote against them, the
Catholic Abbot of Clugny, says that they taught that ‘infants are not
baptized or saved by the faith of another, but ought to be baptized and
saved by their own faith; or that baptism without their own faith does
not save, and that those that are baptized in infancy, when grown up
should be baptized again, nor are they then rebaptized, but rather
rightly baptized.’ (Magdeburg Centuriators, Cent. xii. c. 5, p. 332.
_Ivimey_, vol. i., p. 22.) The Lateran Council, under Pope Innocent the
Second, in 1139, according to Dr. Wall, did condemn Peter Bruis and his
follower Arnold of Bresica, for rejecting infant baptism. The followers
of these men were called Petrobrussians, Henricans, and Arnoldists, and
a portion of them, at a later day, _Lollards_, from one Lollardo, who
brought their doctrine into England. They and those who held the same
doctrines, namely, the Paternines and Puritans, or Cathari, from the
Province of Bulgaria, spread over the south of Europe, and,
notwithstanding all the terrific persecutions to which they were
subjected, maintained their separate societies even in parts of Italy.
They owned the Scriptures for their only rule of faith and practice,
administered baptism only to professed believers, and that by one
immersion. See Orchard’s _History of Foreign Baptists_, p. 160.
“It is stated by the learned Magdeburg Centuriators, and by Wall, that
the followers of Peter Bruis, and of Henry, were about eight hundred
thousand strong when Waldo, of Lyons, appeared and joined them, a few
years after their condemnation by the Roman Catholic Council. He became
a great leader among them, and thence, some say, they were called
Waldenses, or Lyonists. Before the close of this century they had become
a mighty host, and embraced among them persons of rank and power. In
France, where they were strongest, they were called Albigenses. The
ordinary means for the extirpation of the heresy not availing for their
destruction, Pope Innocent the Third determined to bring to bear upon
them all the military power of his dominions. He raised an army of from
three to five hundred thousand men, and sent for their destruction. Two
hundred thousand fell in one short campaign in the year 1209. An other
army was sent the coming year: cities and towns were burned, the country
desolated, and every man, woman, and child that could be found,
destroyed or banished. This was repeated year by year until the death of
Innocent in 1216, and the same sanguinary course was followed up by his
successor until about 1229, when the heretics had been so completely
crushed that scarcely any could be found to glut the Roman thirst for
blood. A great multitude had, however, escaped to other lands and
carried the true gospel with them. They gathered in Switzerland and
Germany, and among the valleys of the Pyrenees; and after all the wicked
waste of life for the quarter of a century, it is conceded that there
still remained at least _eight hundred thousand_ of these persecuted
people, concealed in various countries of Europe. (_Perin_.)”
“But is it certain,” asked Theodosia, “that these Albigenses were
Baptists?”
“It was for denying infant baptism and the sacraments of the Roman
Catholic hierarchy,” replied Mr. Courtney, “that they were condemned.
Their own confessions of faith, the accusations of their enemies, and
the concurrent testimony of historians, all unite in showing that they
were Baptist Churches. See Orchard’s _History of the Foreign Baptists_
pp. 226–229.
“The same people in England were called Lollards, from the eminent
Walter Lollardo, who left his native land to preach this gospel to the
British; but the doctrines had gone there before him Archbishop Lanfranc
wrote a book against them shortly after the doctrine was condemned by
the Lateran Council in 1139. About this time Lingard says a colony of
people came into England belonging to the fanatics who invested the
north of Italy, Gaul, and Germany, and who were called Puritans. Usher
calls them Waldenses. They said they were Christians, and followed the
doctrines of the apostles; they denied purgatory, prayers for the dead,
and invocations to the saints. It was from these people that Wyckliffe
first, and Tyndale afterwards, were indoctrinated in the truth. History
records the death of thousands of them up to the very time of the
Reformation, as it is called, under Henry the Eighth, though by that
time their name had been changed to Anabaptists.
“We might trace the same people in Bohemia, in Poland, in Moravia, and
elsewhere; but it is not needful for our purpose. We have seen that,
according to the testimony of Dr. Wall, there were Baptist Churches from
1139 or before, when Peter Bruis and Henry set them up. Wall says they
were the _first_, but I will show you now that Wall was mistaken. These
men laid no claim to the _originating_ of a system. They but embraced
and preached doctrines already known, and united with a people who were
already in being, and _had long been persecuted_ for the maintaining of
the _very same doctrines and practices_. If we will go back to the A.D.
750 to 1150. time of Pope Stephen the Second, about 750, we will find in
history numerous accounts of a people called _Paternines_, who denounced
infant baptism, and maintained that a Church should consist only of
Christian people, and must not persecute, and who baptized by immersion,
as indeed _all_ parties did at that time. (See Robinson’s _History of
Baptists_, pp. 428–430.) They were called Paternines from the patience
with which they suffered for the cause of Christ. In 1040 they had
become very numerous. Their principal city was Milan. They had no
connection with the _Church_ of Rome. They rejected the authority of the
_Fathers_. They said the sign of the cross was _the mark of the Beast_.
Their Churches were numerous all over Europe, their meetings being held
during times of persecution in the residences of the brethren, and it
was to these people that Peter Bruis, and Henry, and Arnold of Bresica
joined themselves, and gave their learning and their eloquence to
advance their cause. They, indeed, became so conspicuous among them that
portions of their communities were called by their names; but though
they were the means of giving them _new names_, they did not give them
_new doctrines_. They _left_ the Church of Rome, and joined these people
who were _never in the Church_.
“But the Paternines were no _new sect_. They had simply been _new
named_, for they belonged to the people who were A.D. 650 to 750. before
called _Paulicians_, or Publicans, and who began about the year 650, and
who are well known to the history of those times. Robinson says they
_rebaptized_ those who came to them by _immersion_. Mosheim says they
_rejected the baptism of infants_, and Dr. Allix calls them
_Anabaptists_. Because they had no rulers and condemned the hierarchy,
they were sometimes called the _Acephali_, from a Greek word signifying
_the Headless_. So numerous were these people, that even after portions
of them had come to be called Paternines and by other names, _one
hundred thousand martyrs_ of them died in nine years by the most horrid
tortures, during the reign of that female devil incarnate, the Empress
Theodora.”
“I am glad,” said Mrs. Percy, “that her name was not Theodosia.”
“From Italy,” continued Mr. Courtney, “the _Paulicians_ sent colonies,
according to the testimony of Mosheim, and Gibbon, and others, into
almost every nation of Europe, and formed a number of religious
assemblies, who adhered to their doctrine, and who suffered every
conceivable indignity from the Church of Rome. In Italy they were called
Paternines, or Puritans; (‘_Paterni_,’ or ‘_Cathari_,’ from a Greek word
signifying the pure;) in France _Bulgarians_, because they came from
Bulgaria, and sometimes Publicans and _Boni-Homines_, or the Good Men;
but they were mainly known as the _Albigenses_, from _Alby_, the name of
a chief town in the region where they dwelt.
“But though the Paulicians were _called_ a new sect, and did have in one
sense an independent origin, from one Constantine, who was afterwards
called Sylvanus, and who was converted to Christ by reading the Gospels
and the Epistles of Paul, which were brought to him out of Syria by a
deacon of a Christian Church, and after his conversion became a noted
preacher of the truth, until he was, at the instigation of the Greek
Church, stoned to death; yet his doctrine was not new, and _before his
day and after it_, there were thousands who, like him, rejected infant
baptism and the authority of the hierarchy, and were in all essential
particulars Baptist Churches of Christ.
“For if we now go back to the year 300, we A.D. 300 to 650. will find
_all_ the Churches to be Baptist Churches in regard to _baptism_, except
a few in Africa, though many of them had become apostate in regard to
the _episcopacy_.
“The accession of Constantine to the imperial throne in 306 has commonly
been regarded as a blessing to Christianity. It was, in fact, so far as
human wisdom can discover, its greatest curse. It degraded and polluted
the Church by combining it with the state, and it made that thing which
people have ever since called _the Church_, the murderer and persecutor
of the followers of Christ. It was a matter of policy in Constantine to
profess the Christian faith. He did it to cement his worldly power. He
was no friend to Jesus. He had never learned of him how to be meek and
lowly. He knew nothing of the humble and forgiving and long-suffering
spirit of the true disciples of Jesus. Like Henry the Eighth of England,
his ambition was to become the _HEAD of the Church_; and as its head, so
soon as his ecclesiastical power was firmly established, he adjusted his
creed and issued his edicts of conformity. His clergy were notoriously
corrupt, and the people who would not submit to their rule were most
grievously oppressed; yet they continued to ask, ‘_What has the Emperor
to do with our religion?_’ The councils of prelates by imperial
authority strove in vain to bring into subjection the _Cathari_, the
Novatianists, and the Ærians, (not _Arians_,) who opposed their
doctrines and rejected their authority, and continued to baptize anew
all who came from their apostate communion. For they regarded the
so-called Catholic Church, now claiming all the power of Christ’s
kingdom, but as a _worldly_ community, while _Christ’s_ Church must,
they said, consist only of the _converted_. There was not at the
beginning of this period in the Eastern Churches any question concerning
_baptism_, for all parties _immersed_, and we have no record of the
baptism of a _child_ until 370, when the _son of the Emperor Valens_ was
thought to be dying, and was baptized by command of the emperor. Nor is
there any official requisition for the baptism of children until the
decree of the Council of Carthage in 401. But we have nothing to do with
_this establishment_, world-wide as it was, which recognized the emperor
for its head. By that one act, if in no other way, it had _apostatized_
from Christ. We must look for the Baptist Churches among those who would
not even on pain of death yield to its usurped authority, who would not
obey its decrees, and who held on to the liberty with which Christ had
made them free. We have nothing to do with the so called Arian heresy,
or its Trinitarian opponents. The apostate Church of the _emperor_ may
fight its own battles—they do not concern the Churches of Christ. These
_never came into the ecclesiastical establishment called the Church_ by
those who write Church history. _That establishment_ was mostly made up
of those who had apostatized before Constantine entered it and was
elevated to its headship. They had already recognized the authority of
bishops and councils to make laws for them. They had already become
worldly and corrupt, and there were those who had long refused communion
with them on this account. They said to any who came to join them, ‘If
you be a virtuous believer, and will concede to our confederacy against
sin, you may be admitted among us by baptism, or, if any Catholic has
baptized you before, by rebaptism.’ It was on this account that they
were at a later day called _Ana-Baptists_, or rebaptizers. They soon
obtained the name of _Cathari_, or Puritans, because they thus insisted
on maintaining the _purity_ of their communion. There is mention made of
these people in France fifty years before the time of Constantine. Their
Churches were scattered all over the Roman empire when Constantine came
to the throne. Constantine sought to unite them with the Catholics, but
they obstinately refused to pollute their communion even at the command
of the emperor, who then professed to be their friend. He therefore
turned against them, destroyed their books, drove them out of their
Churches and, by his oppressive measures, _scattered_ them as precious
seed among those countries in the west of Europe where they afterwards
produced those trees of righteousness, the Paternines, Albigenses,
Waldenses, and others of the same faith and order, though called by
various names. Claudius Seysell, the _popish_ archbishop, _traces the
rise of the WALDENSIAN HERESY to a pastor named Leo leaving Rome at this
early period,_ and taking up his abode in the valleys.
“The succeeding emperors continued the persecution which Constantine
began. In 375, the Puritan ministers were banished by Valens; but
Theodosius, a few years after, restored their liberties, and showed them
so much favor, that at the close of this century they had several
Churches in Constantinople itself, under the very eye of his imperial
majesty.
“In 412, however, their Churches were closed again, and by a decree of
the Lateran council, in 413, they were banished as heretics, and the
emperor doomed all who should _rebaptize_ or _be rebaptized, to death_.
Under this law, so like to that of the Lutheran senate, in 1522, many
were slain, and others driven into the valleys of Piedmont, where they
were after wards called Waldenses. Another council, at Mela, in 416,
held them _accursed_, as denying that infant baptism conferred
forgiveness and salvation, and two years after, the curse was repeated
by a council at Carthage. These persecutions drove them into retirement,
and from the patience with which they endured it, caused them to be
called Paternines, and under this name we have already traced them. The
accounts given of them by Eusebius and by Socrates, the historians of
the early Churches, enables us easily to identify them, even after their
name was changed. A.D. 30 to 300. “Now, to complete our chain, we have
only to go back to the time when Jesus began to be about thirty years
old, and bring down our history to the year 300. John at that time had
prepared or was preparing a people made ready for the Lord. He rejected
all who did not give evidence of true repentance, and profess their
faith in him who was to come. After Jesus had been baptized by him, he,
by his disciples, continued to baptize. Out of these a Church was
formed, as the model for others. The apostles formed many like it in
various places. We have already examined them, and found that they were
Baptist Churches, with every single mark included in our tablet. Such
Churches as these would, of course, succeed them for a time. We have
already ascertained that neither infant baptism nor the rule of
prelatical bishops was recognized among them for many years; and that
when they were sought to be introduced, there were some at least, whose
history we have traced, who would accept of neither. All the so-called
Christian Churches, for the _most part_, were separate and independent
organizations for the first three hundred years; the exceptions being,
as we have seen in our examination of episcopacy, in the cities where
the hierarchy first began by the recognized supremacy of the pastor of
the first or principal Church. Infant baptism, we have seen, was not so
much as mentioned till the time of Tertullian, and then promptly
rejected; nor have we any record of the baptism of any infant till after
Church and State were joined. In those early days _all_ baptized by
_immersion_, as all historians concede; so that we have no possible room
to doubt that from Christ to the separation of the Puritans or
Novatianists, the great multitude of the Churches were independent local
societies, consisting of professed believers who had been baptized by
immersion upon a profession of their faith, and of course had
voluntarily united with them; and that almost all these societies
rejected the authority, in matters of religion, of all lawgivers but
Christ, and were, in fact, just such communities as the Baptist Churches
are now.”
“Your succession is very ingeniously made out,” said the Reverend Mr.
Stiptain, “and it seems a pity to sever such a beautiful chain, and let
all fall that hangs upon it; but the truth of history requires it; and
much as I regret the ruin in which it must involve your whole scheme, I
must call your attention to _one very important fact_, which you,
undesignedly no doubt, forgot to mention.”
“And what is that, pray?”
“It is, simply, that _the Waldenses were not Baptists_, but, like the
Methodists and Presbyterians, baptized their infant children.”
“That would not, even if it were true,” said Mr. Courtney, “sever the
chain of our succession; for I have shown that the _first_ Churches, for
two hundred and fifty years, did not baptize infants, and were in other
things like Baptist Churches. Then I have shown that similar Churches,
disowning the hierarchies and denying all baptisms but that administered
by themselves to professed believers, called Novatianists and Cathari at
first, and Paternines afterwards, continued to exist down to the time of
Peter, and Henry, and Arnold, and that they afterwards became so
numerous under the name of _Albigenses_ as to require immense armies,
year after year, for near a quarter of a century, to extirpate them in
France alone. These Albigenses, I have shown, were Baptists; and it was
by one of these that their doctrines were brought into England. The
Lollards were descendants of these people, and the Lollards continued to
be drowned and burnt in England for denying infant baptism and the
hierarchy, up to the time of the Reformation, and were in all respects
similar to these ancient Baptist Churches. If those upon the continent
ever apostatized, and fell into the baptism of infants, it was _not till
after they had sent believers’ baptism into England_, and any defection
_afterwards_ would not affect our cause.
“Let it be true that some of the people called Waldenses by others, or
even by themselves, did baptize infants; it is enough for us that there
were others of them who, as Dr. Wall says of the Petrobrussians, whom he
counts as a sect of the Waldenses, ‘did reckon infant baptism as one of
the corruptions of the Church of Rome, and accordingly renounced it, and
preached only adult baptism.’ (Hist. Inf. Bap., part ii., chap. 7, §§ 5,
6, 7.) Mosheim says of Peter Bruis, that ‘it is certain that one of his
tenets was, that no persons whatever were to be baptized before they
were come to the full use of reason.’
“Brandt, in his History of the Reformation, says that ‘_some_ of the
Waldenses rejected infant baptism;’ and this is certain from the
testimony of those who _killed them because they did deny infant
baptism_. Now if there were _some_ of them who were Baptists, and
Lollardo was of these, as he must have been, since those whom he
instructed in England were afterwards killed for entertaining Baptist
sentiments, it does not matter if many others of them were degenerate.
“But besides this, we have traced the Baptists of England only through
this _one_ channel: we could trace them with equal ease through the
Mennonites, and these we can trace back to this times of the apostles by
a channel which has no suspicion of infant baptism. Then we have not yet
examined the history of the _original_ baptism which is said to have
been brought into England by Paul himself, and which certainly was
introduced at a very early day, and before the corruptions which made
the Eastern Churches apostate.
“But merely for your satisfaction, I will show you that you have been
imposed upon when you were taught to believe that the main body of the
so-called Waldensian Christians baptized their infants, or were in any
thing other than true Baptist Churches according to our tablet.”
“I do not know,” replied the Presiding Elder, “how that can be, when we
have their own express declaration in their official Confession of
Faith.”
“In a body of people so numerous as the Waldenses,” said Mr. Courtney,
“comprising not only many separate communities, but extending over
different countries, and speaking various different languages, we may
well suppose some diversity of faith and practice; and if some _one_ of
these communities should for themselves have stated that they believed
and practiced infant baptism, it would not follow that all the Waldenses
did so. But I doubt if you can show any such concession.”
“Most certainly I can, sir. It is in the confession entitled ‘A
Confession of Faith of the Waldensian Brethren,’ and is addressed to
King Uladislaus, in Hungary, presented in 1508; and which has been so
often quoted and referred to, that I wonder how a gentleman of your
intelligence upon these subjects could be ignorant of it.”
“I am not ignorant of the existence of the document you refer to; but I
do not believe that it was ever made by _Waldenses_. It was made,
probably, by some of the followers of Huss, commonly called Calixtines.”
“But why do you not believe they were Waldenses?”
“Simply because, in the first place, _the document itself declares that
they WERE NOT._ It begins by informing the king that ‘they _were not_
Waldenses, though by their enemies they were _called_ Waldenses, and
persecuted as such.’ Now, the _real_ Waldenses were not very likely to
be _ashamed of their name_, nor to deny it, even to shun persecution and
death. In the second place, there is a real Waldensian confession, of a
later date, which is in direct opposition to this. In this which you
refer to, and which is _called_ theirs, they are made to say that
‘children, by an apostolic canon, as Dionysius writes, ought to be
baptized;’ but in the later, and real one, say, ‘By this ordinance we
are received into the holy congregation of God’s people, _previously
professing our faith and change of life;_’ and not a word is there about
the infants. (Jones’s _Ch. Hist._ vol. ii., pp. 59, 60. Orchard’s _Hist.
F. B._, p. 278.) But even allowing it to have been made by true
Waldenses, it is evident they must have changed their sentiments and
practice; as nothing can be more certain than that _at one time_ they
were destroyed as pestilent _Anabaptists_.”
“But did they not readily unite with Luther and Calvin, and become
incorporated into their Churches?”
“It is certain,” replied the schoolmaster, “that many of _them_ did.
They were not _all_ prepared to suffer death for their religion, either
at the hands of Luther or the pope; and large bodies of them came over
to Luther, and more still to Calvin; yet so many remained faithful, that
Mosheim says ‘prodigious numbers of them were devoted to death in its
most dreadful forms.’ ‘In almost all the countries of Europe _an
unspeakable number of Baptists_ preferred death in its worst forms to a
retraction of their sentiments.’ ‘They suffered death,’ says the same
author, ‘not on account of their being considered rebellious subjects,
but merely because _they were judged to be incurable heretics_; for, in
this century, [the sixteenth,] the error or limiting the administration
of baptism to adult persons only, and the practice of rebaptizing such
as had received the sacrament in infancy, were looked upon as the most
flagitious and intolerable of heresies. Those who had no other marks of
peculiarity than their administering baptism to the adult, and their
excluding the unrighteous from the external communion of the Church,
ought to have met with milder treatment.’
“But now let us suppose, for a moment, that all the Waldenses had from
the first been Pedobaptists; then it would follow of necessity that
there were some other people who had existed and been persecuted all the
time as Anabaptists; for Cardinal Hosius, the Roman Catholic president
of the Council of Trent, expressly recognizes the existence of some such
people, and his authority in the matter is unquestionable: ‘If the truth
of religion were to be judged of by the readiness and cheerfulness which
a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and persuasions
of no sect can be truer or surer than those of the Anabaptists; since
there have been none, for these twelve hundred years past, that have
been more grievously punished.’ This was in 1570, and twelve hundred
years back carries us to the _very year_ in which the _first infant
baptism_ is recorded. And Mosheim: says, ‘that when the Mennonites for
Dutch Baptists assert that they are the descendants of the Waldenses,
Petrobrussians, and other ancient sects, who are usually considered the
_witnesses of the truth_ in the times of universal darkness, they are
not entirely mistaken; for, before Luther and Calvin, there lay
concealed in almost all the countries of Europe many persons who adhered
tenaciously to the doctrines of the Dutch Baptists.’ Some of the
followers of Menno, who had collected and reorganized the ancient
Waldensian Baptists, settled in Holland. After the Reformation in
England, some who embraced Baptist sentiments, but had among them no one
whom they considered as authorized to baptize, sent to Holland one of
their number to be baptized and qualified; and thus true baptism came
into England again from _these Mennonite Churches_. And it was from
_these Churches_, and not directly from England, that the first Baptists
came to this country and formed the Churches at Swanzey and Boston, as
we have seen.
DIAGRAM OF CHURCH HISTORY.
[Illustration: Diagram of Church History.]
EXPLANATION OF THE DIAGRAM.
THE period which has elapsed since his Church was organized by the Lord
Jesus shortly after A. D. 30 down to the present time, we have divided
into _FIVE great historical periods_, as indicated by the braces (⏞) in
the left-hand column, which represent the succession of the Baptist
Churches.
The 1st of these periods, it will be seen, extends from the year 30 to
250, during which time almost _all_ the Churches had the marks required
by our tablet. The figures after pp. refer to the pages of this work in
which their history is briefly recorded.
The 2d period extends from 250 to 650. P. 466.
The 3d from 650 to 1150. P. 465.
The 4th from 1150 to 1500. P. 462.
The 5th from 1500 to the present time. P. 458.
In each of these periods we have distinctly, though very briefly, shown
the existence of the genuine and true Christian Church, conforming in
all things to the Scripture pattern, and called by the names indicated
in the Diagram. If our space would permit, we could make their history
much more complete. Our object is merely to prove their _existence_.
The GREAT APOSTASY, foretold in the Scripture as the Mystery of
Iniquity, the Man of Sin and the Son of Perdition, and Antichrist, is
represented by the lines that go off at right-angles from the year 250
to 400. This Apostasy was of gradual growth, and was mainly
characterized by the substitution of the Hierarchy, or the rule of the
bishops and councils, for the independence of the Churches, by the union
of Church and State under Constantine, and the introduction of
unauthorized members by the baptism of infants, or rather of _minors_.
It claimed to be the Holy Catholic or _Universal_ Church, and from the
first became a _bloody persecutor_ of those in the left-hand column.
A little after 1500 it gave off, during what was called the Reformation,
the bodies which were organized respectively by Luther, Calvin, and King
Henry VIII., since known as the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian
Church, and the Church of England. These have each given off several
others, only a few of which are indicated on the Diagram, with the dates
of their organization.
“It does not follow that because some in England sent to these ancient
Churches for their baptism, they might not have found it nearer home.
There is, to say the least, a very _strong probability_ that the
original, pure Christianity brought into England in the apostles’ days
was never quite extinguished, but that true Churches have existed, at
least in Wales, from the very first; and it is certain the Lollards
found a lodging there. In this country we have had ministers from
England and Wales, and from Germany and Holland, all bringing with them
the baptism which came down from the ancient Churches.”
“I think,” said Mr. Percy, “I could make this matter plainer by means of
a diagram, or chart, which will bring the prominent facts before the eye
at one view. Thus, let the straight lines upon the left of the page show
the succession of true Churches, and those on the right the several
departures from them, while on the margin we may put the dates of each
important change.”
(See Diagram of Church History, on page 476.)
“Now, if you, or any one else, should feel dissatisfied with this brief
but comprehensive history of the Baptist Churches, let me commend to
your reading, Jones’s Church History, Robinson’s History of Baptism, De
Anvers’ History of the Baptists, Ivimey’s History of English Baptists,
Crosby’s History of the English Baptists, and last, and best of all,
because they contain the essence of their statements in a smaller
compass, those monuments of historical industry, Orchard’s History of
the Foreign Baptists, and Orchard’s History of the English Baptists.
These works are the result of _thirty years_ of careful and earnest
study by one who had opportunities which very few possess of learning
all that can now be known concerning these so long despised and
persecuted people; and it is hard to say whether he deserves more credit
for what he has written than for what he has left out. For if he had
recorded all, his work would have been too large for many to read, or
any to remember; but, with most admirable judgment, he has selected what
was of most importance, and has arranged it with so much skill, and
authenticated every statement by such abundant references to the most
unexceptionable authorities, that it will be difficult for any candid
mind, after reading these two works, to doubt that there have been
Baptists all the time, from the day that Jesus was baptized (_eis_) into
the river of Jordan, as recorded by Mark, in the beginning of the gospel
of Jesus Christ, down to the present time.
“Now, as the present Baptists hold the same doctrines, have the same
organization, the same officers, and the same ordinances with the
_first_ Churches, and as we have traced such all the way, independent of
the great apostasy, we may give them the last mark also. And therefore
Mr. Percy may now finish his diagram of the Baptist Churches.”
“I do not know so well about that,” said Theodosia, smiling. “I well
remember when my husband, for a little time at least, had very serious
doubts as to whether these were the Churches of Christ, upon a ground
very different from any you have mentioned. He will recollect that one
of his friends almost persuaded him that those could not be the Churches
of Jesus Christ which starved his ministers, or, what is the same thing
to the Churches, compelled them to forsake their sacred calling and
engage in other labors for their subsistence.”
“Yes, indeed,” said Mr. Percy, “I do remember it; and though, for _my
own part_, I have found nothing to complain of, yet, to this day, I
cannot help feeling a sort of doubt as to any Church which I find
pursuing this suicidal and ignoble policy. They way be right in
doctrine, but they are surely very wrong in practice.”
DIAGRAM OF THE BAPTIST CHURCHES.
Signs or Marks of a True | | Marks of a Baptist Church.
Church. | |
--------------------------+--------------+----------------------------
1st. It consists only of | | It consists of those only
professed believers in | | who have publicly professed
Christ. | | their faith in Christ.
2d. Its members have been | | After public profession of
baptized upon a | | their faith they are
profession of their | | immersed, and so baptized.
faith. | |
3d. It is a local | | Each Church is like those
organization, and | | formed by the apostles,
independent of all | | independent of all others.
others. | |
4th. It has Christ alone | | No priests, bishops, or
for its King and | | confederacy can give laws
Lawgiver, and recognizes | | to it, or control its
no other authority above | | discipline. It calls none
its own. | | on earth its master.
5th. Its members have | | Its members were not
become such by their own | | brought in by others in
voluntary act. | | their infancy, but came in
| | of their own desire.
6th. It holds as articles | | It holds as articles of
of faith the fundamental | | faith the fundamental
doctrines of the gospel. | | doctrines of the gospel.
7th. It began with | | The apostolic Churches were
Christ, and has continued | | Baptist Churches, and just
to the present time. | | such have been continued,
| | even until now. See
| | Historic Chart, p. 477.
8th. It never persecutes | | It has in every age been
for conscience’ sake. | | the advocate of religious
| | freedom; has asked it for
| | others as well as itself;
| | and though always
| | persecuted, never
| | persecutes.
9th. No apostate Church | | It has not apostatized, nor
can be a Church of | | has it ever been connected
Christ. | | with the great apostasy.
“If you will take the trouble to observe a little more carefully,”
replied Mr. Courtney, “you will find that whenever and wherever a
minister has had the _faith_ and courage to risk all and give himself
_entirely_ to his proper work, he has been provided for. The Lord does
not intend that his ministers shall _get rich_; and when they leave
their work to engage in money-making, he often blasts all their hopes,
in various ways of his providence. But he does intend and has plainly
and repeatedly _promised_ that they _shall have enough_ for the supply
of their necessities; and this they will have _in the ministry_, if they
will _devote themselves entirely to it_. I am ready to assure to any
young man whom the Lord has qualified and called to preach, a
comfortable support, provided he will give up all his powers of body and
mind to the one work of his calling. I can do so because the Master has
promised, and I can do so because I have been watching for years, and
have not found his promise fail to any one who kept himself within the
order of God’s providence—that is, who was ready to go and labor
wherever God by his providence seemed to call him. I could, for the
encouragement of such, relate the personal history of several, the
beginnings of whose ministerial life were most unpromising, but who had
determined to know nothing but Christ, and do nothing but preach; and
are now enjoying in a green old age as many comforts as their neighbors,
who have made it the business of their lives to get rich. But while I
say this, I know very well that our Churches are most shamefully
negligent of their duty. They give nothing near what they should give
for the support of the ministry; but for this there are two reasons
besides the parsimony of the brethren. I grant that this is one; and if
it is not repented of, God will shortly take our candlestick away and
leave our Churches to die out, as some Baptist Churches are already
doing, and many others have done in the last thirty years. But I do not
believe _this is the principal_ reason. That is to be found in the
_early history_ of our Churches, when we were _taxed_ to pay other
preachers than our own, to preach another gospel which we did not
believe. The people felt the injustice of such taxation; our ministers
declaimed against it; and, to show that _they_ were of a different
class, that _they_ did not care for the pay, so that they had their love
and saved their souls, they took a pride in preaching without
compensation, and Providence, as it _then_ might have been their duty,
enabled them to do it, and yet not to suffer. The people came gradually
to think that what was thus done for a particular purpose, under
peculiar circumstances, was something _required by the gospel_, and that
ministers were _bound_ to preach _without any regular provision_ for
their support. The ministers had only done as Paul did—waived their
rights for the time being, that their gospel might not be reproached.
Paul labored for his own support and that of those who were with him.
Sometimes he would not be chargeable to the Churches for his support,
but he was careful to maintain all the time that he had _a right_ to it.
He was careful to show that it was the express command of the Lord Jesus
that ‘those who preached the gospel should live by the gospel;’ and that
he and others might forbear working if they would. It is not unlikely
our preachers might have been less careful in this particular, and so
the people came to feel at length that preachers should have no regular
support, and if any one claimed it they were disposed to class him with
their oppressors, whom they counted but as wolves, seeking to devour
their substance, or, at least, mere hirelings who labored _only_ for the
pay.
“Such opinions and feelings, deeply infused into a great mass of minds,
would be eradicated but slowly, even by the most sedulous efforts of
succeeding ministers. But here is the third reason: _These efforts have
been wanting._ I blame our _preachers_ more than our people for this
state of things. They have pandered to this corruption in the Churches,
instead of boldly reproving it as they should.”
“But, my dear sir, to have boldly reproved it would have lost them the
confidence and the affections of the flock, and prevented them from
doing good in any other way.”
“So perhaps it might if they had begun by complaints concerning
_themselves_. I would not have a minister always grumbling about _his
own support_. To do so _will leave_ the impression that it is for the
gratification of _his_ selfishness that he seeks to cure others of being
selfish. A wise man who understands human nature will adopt another and
more successful plan. He will show the people that the _Lord_ requires
them to _give_, not to him, the preacher, but to the cause of Christ. He
will present _frequent_ opportunities to them for _giving_ to others
than himself. He will plead the cause of the destitute, and of the
heathen. He will present the claims of missions, and of Bible societies,
of Sunday schools, and other objects of Christian benevolence, until
they have acquired a _habit of giving_. He will explain the teachings of
the Word concerning ministerial support, and thus preach the _whole_
gospel, but without making any application of it to _his own case_. Let
him do this, and his people will spontaneously begin to feel that they
have done too little for their own pastor. Let _all_ our ministers begin
at once to preach thus _prudently_ and kindly the _whole_ gospel, and
the Churches will soon show that the fault was less in them than in the
preachers themselves that they have been apparently so parsimonious.”
“I have already seen enough in my own experience,” said Mr. Percy, “to
convince me of the truth of what you say.”
“I wish,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “we could have finished this conversation
last Saturday, so that I might have gone into the water with that young
man who was yesterday baptized. My last lingering doubt is gone. I thank
you all for the patience with which you have borne with my slowness of
faith, and the readiness with which you have assisted my inquiries.”
“We are more than repaid,” said Mr. Percy, “by the happy result.”
“And I,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “am heartily glad that you have
come to some conclusion. Of course I had rather you had determined to be
a Methodist; but any branch of the Church is better than none. Let every
man be fully persuaded in his own mind, and be able to give a reason for
the faith that is in him. I trust, sir, you will now enjoy that peace
which arises only from a consciousness of doing your duty.”
“I wish, my dear friend, I could persuade you to unite with me, and _do
your duty also_.”
“O, as to that, I have always enjoyed myself very well among the
Methodists. You know I glory in the name, and among them I expect to
live and die; but I acknowledge, after what I have learned of the
Baptist Churches, I shall hereafter feel a _little_ more respect for
them than I have.”
On their way back to the Doctor’s residence, Theodosia reminded him that
as they had now finished the investigation of the question, What is the
Church? he was under promise to relate to her the means, or rather the
arguments by which he was recovered from his infidelity and atheism, and
led to receive the Scriptures as the word of God.
But as this conversation has no connection with the subject treated of
in the present volume, we must postpone it for the present,[12] and only
inform the reader that Doctor Thinkwell was baptized into the little
Church at their next regular meeting, much to the joy of all God’s
people there; and that our travelling party pursued their way to the
mountains, where Mr. Percy’s strength was soon so far restored that he
felt that he must hasten back to his flock in the South, where he is
still residing, preaching Jesus, beloved by his people, and admired by
the world. Theodosia is indeed his helper in the Lord. Her influence is
felt in every department of his work; nor does he preach less
touchingly, or labor less hopefully, since the dear little boy came to
amuse his hours of relaxation with its childish prattle. Mrs. Ernest and
old Aunt Chloe are the assistants of Theodosia in her domestic labors,
and all of them delight to show how much they love their Saviour and his
Church.
FOOTNOTES
[1] If my reader desires to see the argument on this subject, he can
find it in a delightful work styled “The Infidel’s Daughter.”
[2] Theodosia, vol. i.,
[3] See the argument in “The Infidel’s Daughter,” which may, in some
sort, be regarded as a continuation of the present work, by the same
author.
[4] The reader will find the best apology which Mr. Courtney knew how to
make for the parsimony of the Baptist churches farther on. It must be
admitted that there is a most deplorable amount of truth in the
allegations of Dr. Woodruff; and Mr. Percy’s fears of what would
probably be the treatment of the churches to himself and family were not
only natural, but more than justified by the facts which must have
stared him in the face had he been at all familiar with the relationship
which very generally in this country exists between the pastors and
their people. It is a mournful truth that the churches do not give their
ministers a reasonable support. It is lamentable to see how many of the
best and noblest minds are driven out of the pulpit into the schoolroom,
or the workshop, or other place of secular business, by the apprehension
of absolute want. It is sad to think how many who would probably be most
useful and efficient ministers are prevented by such fears from ever
entering the ministry.
Few have the utter self-consecration of Mr. Percy, and scarcely any such
a comforter to speak words of hope and trust to their doubting hearts.
There is a fearful, an awful weight of responsibility resting upon our
churches in regard to this subject. Let them look to it that God does
not require at their hands the price of souls. Are there not _some_ of
them who have good reason to fear that by their parsimony they have
forfeited the right to be regarded as the true churches of Him who has
expressly provided that they who preach the gospel shall live of the
gospel?
[5] During the lifetime of Christ the _kingdom_ was established, but
_the Church_, as the _executive_ of the kingdom, was not needful, for
the King himself was present, and acted as his _own_ executive. The
apostles who were with him, receiving instructions, may be regarded as
in some sort his _ekklesia_. They were _an assembly of his people_, and
were engaged in the _preparatory_ business pertaining to the kingdom. We
may, without impropriety, therefore, consider the meetings of the
apostles to receive the ordinances and laws of the kingdom from the
mouth of Christ, as meetings of his _ekklesia_. We may consider the
apostles as constituting a Church when they, after the Passover,
received the ordinance of the supper with instructions for its
continuance; and so we may consider that as a Church meeting in which
Thomas saw and believed; and that in which Peter was restored to favor
and specially charged to feed Christ’s sheep. And so each of those
assemblies which gathered around the Saviour during the forty days that
he remained upon the earth to receive instruction in the things
pertaining to the kingdom, may be regarded as a Church meeting. We may
consider the Church as _organized_ from the time that Christ called the
twelve to be with him; but it was not till he was about to ascend that
it received _authority to transact the business_ of the kingdom, _as his
judiciary and executive_.
[6] The reader is respectfully desired to turn back to page 159 of the
first volume of Theodosia, and read again, in connection with the
subject the chapter on the introduction of sprinkling.
[7] The reader is referred for additional information upon this subject
to pages 319–340, vol. i.
[8] The following is a part of the act of Parliament referred to, and
under authority of which the three American bishops, White, Madison, and
Prevoost were permitted to be consecrated. After making it lawful for
the English bishops to proceed with the consecration in a certain way,
the act goes on to say, that “No person shall be consecrated bishop in
the manner herein provided, until the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the
Archbishop of York, for the time being, shall have first applied for and
obtained his _majesty’s license_, by warrant, under his royal signet and
sign-manual, empowering him to proceed to such consecration.
“Provided also, and it is hereby declared, that NO PERSON or PERSONS,
consecrated to the office of a bishop in the manner aforesaid, _nor any
person or persons deriving their consecration from or under any bishop
so consecrated_, nor any person or persons admitted to the order of a
deacon or a priest, by any bishop or bishops so consecrated, SHALL BE
THEREBY ENABLED TO EXERCISE HIS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICE WITHIN HIS
MAJESTY’S DOMINIONS.”—(_Statutes of George III_)
[9] Can any Methodist answer it? Let each one try.
[10] The members of the society have the same right to control the
discipline of their own body that a recent letter-writer says the people
in France have _to vote_. He says, “_We have entire freedom to vote._ A
ticket prepared for us by the government, and we may vote it if we
please. But if we do not like the ticket, we can abstain from voting.”
[11] If any one should doubt that it was the express intention of the
makers of the Discipline to place the whole power of retaining or
excluding members in the hands of the preachers, he can easily be
satisfied by consulting the explanatory notes at first appended to the
Discipline, and at one time published with it. These notes were prepared
by Bishops Coke and Asbury, who presided in the Conference which formed
the Church, and made, or rather adopted, the Discipline. In reference to
this matter, the bishops say, “The grand point to be determined is this:
whether the final judgment of an offender, in respect both to the guilt
and the censure, should be invested in the _minister_ or in the
_people_? We shall therefore take a view of this part of our economy;
first, in the light of Scripture, and secondly, in that of reason.” Then
from Matthew xviii. 15, 17, “If thy brother shall trespass against
thee,” etc., they come to the sage conclusion that “here is not a word
said of the _Church’s_ authority, either to judge or to censure. _On the
contrary, the WHOLE AUTHORITY IS EXPRESSLY DELIVERED INTO THE HANDS OF
THE MINISTER._” So that, if they intended by the provisions of the
Discipline to place _any part_ of the authority in _the Church_, they
belied their own convictions and stultified their own explanation of the
word of God.
“But it may be urged,” they go on to say, “that the offence must _be
first mentioned_ to the Church before the offender can be scripturally
excluded. ‘Tell it to the Church,’ says our Lord. And so we do. It is
merely for the sake of convenience that in large societies we tell it
only to a committee, or representation of the society, or do abundantly
more—even _make them witnesses of the whole trial_. But if such
societies were to desire it, we would tell the whole unto the Church at
large. _But still, we must declare from the plain sense of the word of
God_ that our Lord invests the _minister WITH THE WHOLE AUTHORITY BOTH
OF JUDGMENT AND OF CENSURE_.”—(_Notes on Discipline_, chap. ii, sec. 8
as quoted in Emory’s _History of the Discipline_, pp. 331–288.)
[12] The reader will find it in the volume styled “The Infidel’s
Daughter.”
COMPREHENSIVE INDEX
TO THE ARGUMENT IN THE FIRST VOLUME OF THEODOSIA; OR, THE TEN NIGHT’S
STUDY OF SCRIPTURE BAPTISM.
PART I.
• Baptism, the Act, or “Mode,” pp. 25–188.
• what? the question stated, 26.
• value of Lexicons, 29–31.
• Baptizo, meaning of, 26–156.
• generic or specific, 26.
• transferred, not translated, in King James’s version, 27.
• its meaning fixed by the Lord Himself, 29.
• testimony of the Lexicons, 28–32, 40.
• of Dr. Albert Barnes, 42–54.
• of Dr. James McKnight, 55–58.
• of Dr. Thomas Chalmers, 58.
• of Calvin, 64.
• of Prof. Stuart, 61, 134.
• of John Wesley, 61–63.
• of Martin Luther, 63.
• Baptism of John immersion or not immersion? 80–92.
• with water versus in water, 83–92.
• of the Holy Ghost, 96–107, 151–153.
• of the three thousand, 108–110, 114–120.
• Baptism, New Testament use of, peculiar, 124–156.
• Luke xvi. 24; 134.
• John xiii. 26; 135.
• Rev. xix. 13; 135.
• cups, beds, and tables, Mark vii. 4; 135–142.
• washing after market, 137–142.
• Matt. iii. 5, 6, 16; 142, 143.
• Paul baptized standing, Acts ix.; 145, 147. [488]
• Baptism of Cornelius, “Forbid water,” 148.
• of the Jailer, Acts xvi. 33; 149.
• of the eunuch, 150.
• Nebuchadnezzar dipped in dew, 181.
• Baptizo, argument from its figurative use, 151–155.
• in the sea, baptized unto Moses, etc., 152–154.
• buried with Christ, 154.
• Baptism, history of the change from immersion to pouring and
sprinkling, 160–188.
• testimony of Mosheim, 163
• of Neander, 164.
• of Coleman, 164.
• of Schaff, 165.
• of Justin Martyr, 167.
• of Tertullian, 168.
• of D’Aubigne, 168.
• of Moses Stuart, 169.
• of Dr. Samuel Miller, 170.
• of Martin Luther, 170.
• of John Calvin, 171.
• of Dr. Whitby, 171.
• of Thomas Stackhouse, 171.
• of Bishop Taylor, 171.
• of Richard Baxter, 172.
• of Yeipeg and Dermount, 178.
• of Bishop Bossuet, 173.
• of the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, 175.
• of Dr. Wall, 176–178.
• of the American Encyclopedia, 178.
• about Roger Williams, 187.
PART II.
• Infant baptism, or subjects of baptism, 201–341.
• not commanded in Scripture, 201–219.
• not in the commission, 202–207.
• “Suffer little children,” etc., Matt. xix. 13, 14; 207–210.
• “You and your children,” Acts ii. 38, 39; 210–212.
• “Else were your children unclean,” 1 Cor. vii. 14; 212–218.
• No example of infant baptism, 220–240.
• The family of Cornelius, 227.
• of Lydia, 228.
• of the jailer, 231.
• of Crispus, 232.
• of Stephanas, 235.
• Circumcision no ground of infant baptism, 279–299.
• Infant baptism a wicked falsehood, 302.
• Infant baptism is wicked rebellion against God, 304. [489]
• Infant baptism leads to persecution, 308.
• Infant baptism is impious sacrilege, 309.
• Infant baptism, when and how introduced, 320–341.
PART III.
• Close Communion considered, 352–389.
• of Presbyterians, 356–365.
• required by Christ, 365–382.
• Claims of Christian courtesy, 382–386.
• Claims of Church discipline, 385–388.
INDEX
TO THE ARGUMENTS IN THE SECOND VOLUME OF THEODOSIA ERNEST.
• The use of fictitious narratives to illustrate or enforce religious
truth, pp. 1–10.
• The characteristics of a true Church may be known by the Scriptures,
16–24.
• The Church has no branches, 17–21.
• The Church of Christ is not the same as the Kingdom of Christ,
32–50, 68–70.
• What is the Kingdom? 33.
• The kingdom did not exist before Christ came, 34–36.
• The nature of the kingdom, 36–38.
• Terms of citizenship in the kingdom, 39–44.
• A visible and an invisible kingdom, 44–46.
• The Church is the executive of the visible kingdom, 47–49.
• Common meaning of the word Church, 70.
• Scriptural meaning of the word Church, 70–76.
• Proof that the Church was an independent, local assembly, 76–90.
• There is no universal Church, 90–130.
• “On this rock,” (Matt. xvi. 18,) 97–104.
• “Tell it to the Church,” (Matt. xviii. 15, 20,) 104–117.
• Other texts commonly thought to refer to a Church universal,
117–130.
• How shall we find the true Church? 133.
• It does not consist of believers and their children, 134–154.
• No society of unbaptized Christians can be a Church, 154.
• The Church is a local organization, 156.
• It is independent, and subject to no conference, presbytery, or the
like, 158.
• It is a voluntary society, 161.
• It holds to the faith of the gospel, 162.[491]
• It is an official body, 163.
• It is executive, not legislative, 165.
• Does history or the Bible decide what is the Church? 168–172.
• True value of historical tests, 173–176.
• The tablet, or ten short Scripture rules by which to try a Church,
183, 184.
• The ministers or officers of a Church, 186.
• The Church Of Rome tried, 187–256.
• Rome has changed Christ’s baptism, and substituted sprinkling and
pouring for immersion, 187–194.
• Did the Roman Catholic Church begin with Christ? 199.
• Episcopacy, the origin of, 208–241.
• Rome apostate, 245.
• The Protestant Churches consequently without baptism or ordination,
246–256.
• diagram of the Roman Catholic Church, 257.
• Infant baptism, when introduced, 258–271.
• The Church of England tried, 273–304.
• Diagram of the Church of England, 305.
• Methodist Episcopal Church tried, 306–401.
• Are infants members? 307–326.
• Are seekers members? 326–329.
• The independence of Methodist Churches, 330–341.
• Have they Christ alone for king? 342–374.
• Teaches baptismal regeneration, 378.
• History of Methodist Church, 394–399.
• Diagram of Methodist Church, 417.
• Presbyterian Church tried, 403–415.
• Diagram of Presbyterian Church, 415.
• Lutheran Church tried, 416.
• Diagram of Lutheran Church, 417.
• Luther a persecutor, 418–422.
• The Madmen of Munster not Baptists, 421.
• Congregational Churches tried, 422.
• Diagram of Congregational Churches, 424.
• Avoidable ignorance no excuse for sin, 426.
• No nonessentials in religion, 439.
• The Church in session, 441.
• The Baptist Churches tried, 445.
• Diagram of Church History, 476.
• Diagram of the Baptist Churches, 460.
The End.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Archaic spelling and punctuation were not updated.
Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected.
Some inconsistent hyphenation patterns have been silently corrected
(e.g. “school-master” versus “schoolmaster”), opting for the most used
form.
New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the public
domain. The background image is a photograph of this edition’s original
cover.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THEODOSIA ERNEST ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
