diff options
Diffstat (limited to '77796-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 77796-0.txt | 28255 |
1 files changed, 28255 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/77796-0.txt b/77796-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..87e89be --- /dev/null +++ b/77796-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,28255 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77796 *** + + + + +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 77796 *** |