CHAPTER VI.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE M. E. CHURCH CONTRASTED

WITH OTHER SYSTEMS.

THUS far we have said little of our polity by way of com parison, preferring to present it on its own merits. The discussion would, probably, be more acceptable to brethren of other sects, were we to maintain this policy to the end. But considering the assumptions of other systems, and especially the numerous objections their friends and supporters have seen fit to urge against our own, we cannot do justice to this department of our work, without referring to a few particu lars, in which the former are wanting in virtues that abound in the latter. We shall treat the subject as delicately as possible, and hope to give no offence.

Of the different forms of episcopacy, we have little to say. Not for the reason that they are more agreeable to us, so much as that they are less in our way. Romanism is an absolute monarchy. The priesthood is the master, the people the slave. But this abuse of episcopacy does not invalidate it. Those who declaim against bishops, because they have figured so abhorrently in the Romish Church, seal their own condemnation. They practice many things that have descended to them through this same medium. They might reject the Bible on this principle. But, muddy as is the channel through which it has been transmitted, they receive it as the pure word of God. They erect churches,

also, keep holy days, preach and pray, all of which things Romanists have abused from time immemorial.

Nor would we be understood as having any particular friendship for the system of Protestant Episcopalians, though we leave them out of this account. Their episcopacy is altogether over-strained, and not properly guarded. They assume too much for it, and concede too much to Romanists, to maintain a very stable and protracted existence, except where they are identified with the State; and there, even, they will be subject to infinite trouble, since the administration will, probably, vary in its predilections, as heretofore; now inclining toward Rome, and now, again, toward liberty and religious toleration.

We shall speak principally of Independency and Presbyterianism, and on general principles. Three points of comparison will be sufficient to indicate the grounds of our preference for the Methodist Episcopal system.

I. The first we shall name relates to pastoral and minis terial authority.

The difference between us and Independents and Presbyterians, on this point, is considerable. We believe the Christian ministry, however established, to be invested with certain prerogatives that are not to be exercised or controlled by any other body. That is, that when a man is duly called of God to the ministry, he is authorized to discharge certain functions that other men should not undertake; and, therefore, when he is recognized, by any people, as thus called, this authority should not be subordinated to their control. If they do not dare to trust him, and want security for his pru dence and fidelity in using it, they may provide for it as they and he can agree; but while he is among them as a minister of Christ, to represent his master's cause, and do his work, he should be untrammelled in regard to every part of minis

terial duty. We refer now more particularly to the ministry of the word and the administration of the sacraments.

If we mistake not, both Presbyterianism and Independ ency (we use the latter term, without meaning any offence, to designate all Congregationalists of whatever sect) theoretically and practically deny this authority, and place their ministers under a guardianship in the discharge of their peculiar duties, which can but prove a serious impediment to the success of any man who attempts achievements worthy of the office, to say nothing of the care with which they supervise the utterances of the pulpit, complaints of which are becoming more and more multiplied and emphatic every day. How is it in regard to the ordinances? Is a minister allowed to baptize such as he deems worthy? By no means. He may preach the gospel to them, teach, and conduct them safely through the process of repentance and regeneration; but there he must stop. Before he fulfils the other part of his commission, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," he must call a meeting of the "church session," if among Pres byterians of the church, or the church committee, if among Independents and have them canvassed to the satisfaction of the body, when, if they judge proper, and give their consent, he may proceed; but if they, in their prudence, decide for postponement, whether it be for good reasons, or no rea son at all, he must withhold the ordinance, however assured of the worthiness of the candidate to receive it. The same is also true of the Lord's supper. He may "travail with them in birth, until Christ be formed in them," and feet an unutterable solicitude to have them baptized, and admitted to the Church and the sacrament, but he must wait the motion of the ruling elders, or of the committee, who may have no sympathy for the work, and are just in the

right spirit to perplex candidates with knotty questions of doctrine, ungrounded suspicions and delays, to "see if they are not deceived, and are going to backslide."

Now the question is not whether ministers of these denominations are not often as cold as the people, and realize no difficulty from this source, nor whether they do not frequently gain influence enough over their constitutional managers to control them in such matters, nor whether the people are not sometimes more spiritual than their preachers. There is no doubt on either of these points. Nor do we assume that there is any particular difficulty in these arrangements, where society is formally established, and possesses little religious enterprise beyond the weekly routine of settled service. But where a minister is properly engaged in his work, and is connected with a church whose leading spirits do not harmonize with the legitimate objects of the ministry, he may find them a burden more grievous to be borne than poverty or persecution. One who was many years a Presbyterian, and honored with various offices of responsibility, speaking of this system of overseership, says, "It embarrasses the ministry, in all its forms and modes of operation, and disappoints its aims and ends; it sets up a complicated, inconvenient, unmanageable machinery, which is hard to keep standing, so as to command respect, much more to keep going, so as to do good. This machinery has absorbed all controlling power, and the ministry is an acci dent. That which was first has come to be last. gave his sacraments to his ministers to the apostles-that in the use of them they and their successors might maintain the visible forms of his kingdom. But, in this system, the sacraments are held by organizations of laity, and the ministry are obliged to ask leave to take and use them." It was to this kind of control that an old non-conformist minis

*

Christ

ter referred, when he remarked, "I left England to get rid of my lords, the bishops; but here I find in their place my ords, the brethren and sisters; save me from the latter, and let me have the former." And we find frequent allusions to it in the communications of Congregational and Presbyterian ministers, in speaking of revivals. It is when they under take to accomplish something for God and souls, that the system embarrasses them.

66

We object to this aspect of it,

1. That it is unscriptural. If the commission under which all ministers profess to act means any thing, it requires those who receive it to "baptize," as much as it requires them to preach," or to "teach." And they must be their own judges both as to the one and the other. They have no right to agree to refuse baptism to such as, in their opinion, ought to be baptized, to gratify the prejudice, or extreme prudence, or, it may be, the ignorance, of a committee, whose opportunity of understanding the merits of the case is not half equal to their own; and the people ought not to require such subordination at their hands. If they do not think their minister competent for the work, let them dismiss him, and obtain one they can trust.

Is it reasonable to believe that the apostles, and their immediate successors, were subject to such a regimen? Where is the proof? Is it likely that Jerusalem and all Judea passed through the hands of a committee to John the Baptist, before they received the ordinance? Or that St. Paul called the ruling elders to examine the jailer? Was Cornelius, or the eunuch, or the thousands baptized on the day of Pentecost, tested in this manner? The apostles acted on their own responsibility, and required repentance, and such "fruits" in the candidate as satisfied themselves. And since ministers are answerable to the Chief Shepherd for