THE METHODIST Church is false in polity and ordinance.

“Produce your cause, saith the Lord bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob.” (Isa. 41:21.)

“Your covenant with death shall be annulled, and your agreement with Sheol shall not stand.” (Isa. 28:18.)

First. The Methodist Church is false in polity. (a) The church organized by Jesus Christ, and fostered by his immediate disciples and perpetuated by the early fathers was a Democracy, a church of the people, for the people and by the people. The Methodist Church is a monarchy and her bishops are almost absolute monarchs.

(b) The Methodist Church has three orders of ministers. The early primitive church, the church of Jesus Christ (the Baptist denomination) has one order. The Methodist Church has the following order of ministers: deacons, elder and bishops.

Some of the deacons of the first New Testament Church preached the Gospel, still they were not ordained for that specific purpose; but a deacon in the Methodist Church is ordained to the office as a minister of the Gospel. That this is contrary to the original design of the church, see the 6th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.

“Now in these days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

“And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables.

“Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.”

What business? The business of serving tables; the business of looking after the widows of the church; to look after the temporal affairs of the church. Why do the Methodists ordain them to the ministry of the gospel?

(C) The man called to the ministry of the Gospel of Christ in the early Church received only one ordination. Why do the Methodists hold and confer three? From whom do they get their authority? The Bible clearly teaches that elder and bishop are one and the same. Why do the Methodists make them separate and distinct offices?

THE LAW of the A. M. E. Zion Church provides that if there is a balance due the bishop when he dies, the Church shall pay it to his family; but it makes no provisions for the pastor's family to get whatever the church may owe him when he dies. In fact, a contract between the pastor and church simply means that he has the privilege of collecting the amount set forth in the agreement, provided he can collect it before the bishop gets ready to remove him. When the bishop removes a minister from a church, whatever claims he may have against it are settled forever. If this system does not do the pastor a gross injustice, pray tell me what is injustice? The subordinate ministers and their families are simply the slaves of the bishops and their families. The pastor is required to collect from the church the salary of the bishop and presiding elder and get his own salary if he can. The presiding elder comes to him every three months and holds the quarterly meeting, and often receives for himself every cent that is raised during the meeting, leaving the pastor without a cent for himself and family. The greatest slavery that can be thought of grows out of this system, and the poor pastor is subject to the church, the presiding elder and the bishop.

Any member becoming the least dissatisfied with the pastor, confers with the presiding elder (Boss No. 1), and if the elder does not agree with him against the pastor, he confers with the bishop (Boss No. 2).

I cannot see how any lover of the smallest degree of personal liberty can remain in such a church, and particularly is it strange to me how I remained under such a system of slavery so long.

Give me the grand old Missionary Baptist church—a church that believes in equal rights for all, special privileges for none; a church whose associations and conventions, whether local, state or national, are subordinate to the church. Associations, conventions and conferences of every description grow out of the church; they are creatures of the church. How can the creature, from the nature of things, ever become the equal of the creator? But the Methodist Church makes her conferences superior to the church in point of authority. The bishop, a man made by the general conference, a majority of whose members do not belong to any church, simply lords over God's heritage.

A church may request the bishop to send a certain preacher, or let the present pastor be retained; but he is not bound to respect the request. There are members and ministers in the Methodist Church who are even in favor of not allowing the members to say anything whatever in regard to who shall be their pastor; but on the other hand, thank God, there are those in the Connection, both among the ministers and laymen, who are catching the spirit of the freedom of the brightest age of all ages, the progressive spirit of the brightest decade of all the decades gone by. Such will soon be found in our grand old church of individual liberty and personal freedom. My dear brethren of the Methodist Church, why remain slaves?

“But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren.” How can a man have in him the mind that was in Christ Jesus, and enslave his brother either in church or state? On the other hand; how can a man having anything like a just conception of his rights submit to slavery in church or in state?

The system teaches the pastors to depend upon the bishop, instead of depending upon themselves. One of the most important lessons for the Negro to learn is self-help, self-dependence. The cursed system of American Negro slavery taught him to look up to and depend upon the white man in all matters. What he needs now is that institution that will give him the clearest possible conception of his duty and his responsibility, coupled with a knowledge of his rights. For there can be no duty and responsibility without privileges in heaven, earth or hell. Nowhere in the vast universe of God can duty and responsibility only, be justly laid upon one.

What I have said in regard to the outrages perpetrated upon the pastors of the Methodist Church by the presiding elders and bishops is intended to apply mainly to the Negro branches of Methodism, as I have seen it operated with my own eyes. I speak that I do know, and I am testifying to what I have seen. I believe that the Negro pastors in the white Methodist Church are treated better by the white bishops than the pastors in the Negro Methodist Church; but despite this fact, under all of the peculiar circumstances, I prefer a separate church for the Negro to a mixed church of Negroes and white people.

(a) Because the Negro is on probation in this country the white man declares that the Negro is not capable of the highest development. He declares that he is inferior to the white man in every respect. It remains for the Negro to prove to the white man that all he needs is time and opportunity to show that he is a man like any other man. One of the best fields for the Negro to exercise his gifts and demonstrate his native and acquired ability is a distinct Negro Church. Therefore the Negro branches, of Methodism have done and are doing a great deal toward demonstrating to the world the fact that the Negro is fully capable of carrying on his own church work.

(b) The Negro schools that have been planted and are being fostered by the Negro branches of Methodism are eternal monuments to the Negro business tact and excellent uniform ability.

Let us continue, since we are put on probation, to do distinct church work cheerfully. But I would not have the world to believe that I accept the white man's theory of five races of mankind. I believe in the Bible fully, and believing in that blessed old book of books, I am forced to deny the statement of the white man that there are five races. I believe in the unity of mankind. The Bible gives us an account of one Adam and one Eve, from whom sprang all the human family.

The “missing link” stuff set forth by some white men, is not worthy of respectable consideration. Some white men tell us that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife, and that there were no human beings in Nod until Cain went there, and they say that Cain was a white man, and took to himself a monkey, and that the union of Cain and the monkey produced the Negro, and therefore, the Negro, they say, is a mixture of man and monkey. If this is true it is very unfortunate for the Negro, and not a very high compliment to the white man; but this is not true.

In Genesis 4:16, 17, we have this language: “And Cain went out from the presence of Jehovah, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch.” This passage of Scripture plainly tells us that Cain knew his wife, not that he found her in the land of Nod; but he knew her, and as a result of this knowledge she conceived and bare a son. But if we should agree with those who set forth such nonsense, the flood would wipe out this entire theory.

We are taught in God's holy Word that the entire earth was submerged with a mighty flood of water, and only eight persons were saved in the ark, viz.: Noah and his wife, his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, and their wives; that the entire earth was peopled after the flood by this one family. From what quarter of the globe will the white man get his five races? He certainly will have to go outside of the Bible to find them. There is only one race; but the white man has made five, and in books that treat of the races, he makes it appear that the Negro race is lowest of the five. Since this is true, we must work out our salvation on distinct lines. This must be done so that the world can clearly see what we have done in the struggle to lift ourselves to a higher standard of civilization.

WE WILL now proceed to consider that the Methodist Church is false and unscriptural on the ordinance of baptism.

“Produce your cause, saith Jehovah; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob.” (Isa. 41:21.)

“And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand.” (Isa. 28:18.)

There are so many people who tell you when you speak to them about the right church, that they are going to remain where they are, because their mothers and fathers belonged to that church, and died and went to heaven. There is little reason for the white man to give you such an excuse; and it is even a poor excuse for a white man. But for the Negro this is no excuse whatever.

The Negro was brought to this country from Africa against his will by the white man. When he came here he was a heathen. He knew nothing of the true God. The white man has given him his knowledge of God, of literature, doctrine, and nearly everything else, good and bad. The Negro was enslaved in this country for, nearly two hundred and fifty years. During this time he was owned by the white man just as truly as a man owns any other property. White Methodists naturally made their slaves Methodists, and as a general thing, white Baptists made Baptists out of their Negro slaves, etc., and the same thing held good when applied to the members of other white churches. In matters of religion the master and slave were of the same faith.

When the Negroes of the South were emancipated, the Methodist Church, South, organized those who were in their church into a separate body. This organization is called the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church. It was organized in Jackson, Tenn. Bishop Miles was its first bishop.

The A. M. E. Zion Church came from the Methodist Church (white) in the city of New York, in 1796, on account of the color line that was drawn on the colored members by the white members. Immediately after the emancipation of the Negro the A. M. E. Zion Church came South and began to gather the Negro into its Fold.

The African Methodist Episcopal Church came from the white Methodist Church in Philadelphia, Pa., about the time of the formation of the A. M. E. Zion Church in the city of New York. This Church also came South immediately after the Emancipation and began its work here, and continues to gather all who will agree with it in doctrine, etc.

When we look these facts in the face we clearly see we are in the church that the white man put us in. Why, then, should we talk about our mother's and father's church being good enough for us? It is time for the Negro to begin to think for himself. He should rise up to the true dignity of independent research and independent meditation upon God's holy Word.

Since white men have given us ideas of doctrine, and since they differ on it, we should study the doctrine for ourselves from the New Testament Scriptures. You cannot afford to leave the white man to do all of your studying and thinking. Did he not teach our mothers and fathers during the dark days of slavery that slavery was right? Did not the white ministers preach to slaves that slavery was right? The Lord be praised that men differed on this question all through those dark and trying times for the race. Some held that slavery was right, while others held that it was wrong. Truth finally prevailed and we were declared free; but we are only partially free now. Let the Negro who is capable of reading search the Scripture and find out for himself the right way. Dismiss your denominational bias and prejudice and proceed with me in the study of God's blessed word on this all-important subject.

THE GREAT and learned Apostle Paul says to the Gentiles: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”

That all are sinners by nature, let us hear David, the man after God's own heart, on this all-important subject: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Where in all the world of literature can you find stronger language than this on any subject? It needs no commenting upon.

Sin is in the very constitutional mechanism of man. It is deeper than the marrow in his bones. He is a sinner; not by choice, but a born sinner. He cannot keep from starting out a sinner. The first moral acts that he performs are sinful, and all of his succeeding moral acts will be sinful until he is born again—born of the water and of the Spirit. He cannot of himself have his sins blotted out, “Because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be.” Why baptize such a sinful being when baptism signifies purity?

WE WILL now carefully examine household baptisms in the New Testament:

1. Let us examine the case of Cornelius, the Roman centurion. By divine direction Cornelius sent to Joppa for Peter, to learn what he ought to do. Cornelius waited for the apostle in Cæsarea, and called together his relatives and friends to him. Peter preached the Gospel to them. It was the first sermon preached to the Gentiles, and was highly seasoned with grace and accompanied by the Holy Spirit to the hearts of the hearers. “The Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word ∗ ∗ ∗ for they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God ∗ ∗ ∗ and he (Peter) commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” This family all heard the word, believed, received the Holy Ghost, magnified God and were baptized.

Nobody except a pedobaptist will, in the absence of testimony to the effect that Cornelius had infants in his family presume that there were infants in his family, and that they were baptized. Carefully examine Acts 10:2, 24, 44, 46-48.

2. “I baptized also the household of Stephanas,” says Paul (1 Cor. 1:16). Paul visited Corinth about A. D. 54 or 55, where he remained a year and six months, “teaching the word of God among them.” (Acts 18:11.) During this time, he baptized Stephanas and his family. In the year 59 he wrote his first letter to the Church of God in that city. In the epistle he makes special mention of the house of Stephanas: “I beseech you, brethren,” said he, (“ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have set themselves to minister unto the saints), that ye also be in subjection unto such,” etc. (1 Cor. 16:15, 16.) Several points are worthy of notice in this text.

The family of Stephanas were “the firstfruits of Achaia.” This term is applied to the regenerate: “Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.” (James 1:18. See also Rev. 14:4.) The word is never used, so far as we know, to denote unconscious or unregenerate infants.

The family of Stephanas, in four or five years after their baptism, devoted themselves to the “ministry of the saints,” whether in preaching the word or supplying the wants of the poor, we do not know. It was a benevolent, noble service, commended by the spirit of inspiration. If they were infants when baptized by Paul four or five years previously, they were the most precious children that we have read of; nor is this all.

The apostle besought the Corinthian saints, renowned throughout the world for their spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 1:7) to submit themselves unto such as the house of Stephanas. They were not only the benefactors of the church, but fitted to bear rule in it. They were not infants; not children; nor were they at the time of their baptism. It ought in fairness to be conceded that the baptism of the house of Stephanas yields no support to infant baptism, but lends its full weight to the exclusive baptism of believers.

3. We must now notice the baptism of the household of the Philippian jailor recorded in Acts 16:24-34. Paul, divinely guided, passed for the first time into Europe, and commenced his ministrations at a Roman post called Philippi. Here several persons were converted and baptized, and a great persecution was commenced against Paul and Silas. They were arrested, scourged, and committed to prison, to the hands of the jailor, under strict charge to keep them safely. He cast them into the dungeon and made their feet fast in the stocks. They were delivered from their bondage by divine interposition, and the jailor was saved from suicide by the friendly counsel of Paul. We shall notice the narrative only so far as it relates to the point under discussion. The jailor brought Paul and Silas unto his house, and “they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house” (verse 32). We might infer from the excitement and importance of the occasion, that all the jailor's family were present; but there is no room left for conjecture.

The historian tells us positively that the word was preached “to all that were in the house.” What was the result of this instruction? The jailor in the “same hour of the night ∗ ∗ ∗ was baptized, he and all his, immediately” (verse 33). That there might be no possible plea for infant baptism found in this narrative, the inspired writer adds: “He (the jailor) brought them up (Paul and Silas) into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly with all his house, having believed in God” (verse 34).

It is incomprehensible to us that any man of intelligence and candor should doubt that the jailor's family were converts to Christianity. There is precisely the same evidence of their con- version that there is of his. Did he hear the word of the Lord? So did they. Was he baptized? So were they. The whole narrative corresponds to the apostolic commission and practice in Jerusalem and Cæsarea. The ingenious reasoner who can derive authority for infant baptism from this narrative can find it anywhere.

Only the baptism of Lydia's household remains to be considered (Acts 16:14, 15): “A certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household,” etc. Were there infants in Lydia's family? The burden of proof lies on the advocates of pedobaptism, who would derive authority for their practice from this passage. We have shown incontrovertibly, as it seems to us, that in three baptized households there were no children, or they were not included among the baptized. Does not this fact create a strong presumption that there were none in Lydia's house? We will perform, however, a work of supererogation. While we cannot positively prove that Lydia had no infant children, we can show the extreme improbability that she had any. She was a dealer in purple goods, of the city of Thyatira, in the province of Asia, several hundred miles distant from Philippi.

Lydia was probably an adventuress, with no permanent home, and, very likely, she had no husband. She said to Paul and Silas, “Come into my house and abide.” If she had a husband, he seems to have been of no importance to the family; if she were married, there is no proof that she had children; and if she had children, there is no evidence that they were infants or minors. Her family probably consisted of her servants and helpers in her mercantile shop.

When Paul and Silas were released from prison and forced hastily to leave the city, “they entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed.” (Verse 40.) Who were these brethren in Lydia's house? They were not infants or young children, but persons capable of receiving religious consolation and encouragement. If there were nothing to bias the mind it would be almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that the brethren referred to were Lydia's baptized household. If infant baptism has no better foundation than the probability that there were infants in the family of Lydia, and that they were baptized, it ought to be abandoned.

Let us test the strength of the argument drawn from the baptism of households in support of infant baptism by a parallel case.

“There were believing as well as baptized households; of the nobleman of Cana it is said: ‘Himself believed and his whole house’ (John 4:53). We read: ‘Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house’ (Acts 18:8). What would we think of the acumen of a logician who should reason after this manner: We read in the Scriptures of believing families; infants are found in most families; therefore, in the apostolic times, infants believed the Gospel. The conclusion is a manifest absurdity, an consequently nobody reasons in that way; but the argument is quite as logical and the inference quite as conclusive as that which attempts to deduce infant baptism from the baptism of households.

“The argument in favor of infant baptism derived from household baptisms proves quite too much for those who employ it. If families are to be baptized on the faith of their parents, why should the baptisms be limited to infants? Are not adult children, as well as servants, as often found in families as infants? If families are to be baptized, why not baptize the whole of them? By what authority is the ordinance limited to infants and little children? ‘The jailor was baptized, he and all of his.’ if family connection is a plea for baptism, why should it not avail for adults as well as infants? Perhaps it will be said of adults that faith is required of them in order that they may be baptized. Certainly it is of those who act on their own responsibility; but households, according to the pedobaptist theory, are baptized on the faith and by the authority of the parents. If households are to be baptized in virtue of their relations to their pious heads, why should any portion of the family be excluded from the privilege?

“The Israelites were required to circumcise all the males in their families, free and bond, at the age of eight days; but if from any cause, the rite was neglected, it was proper to perform it at any period of life. (Gen. 17:13, and Josh. 5:8.) Circumcision was a family institution, and all its male members were entitled to its benefits. Baptism is supposed by the advocates of the infant rite to be a substitute for circumcision. By what plea, then, do they limit the baptisms of households to the baptism of infants? That is not household baptism. It is the baptism of a part, usually a small part, and that, too, the least important part of the family; and the discrimination, so far as we can discern, is arbitrarily made.”

LET US see what Hibbard, a standard writer of the Methodist Church, in his book on “Baptism,” page 153, says on the subject of Household Baptisms. “The New Testament recognition of infant baptism is obviously set forth in the mention of household baptisms. There are three different places where household baptisms are recorded, namely, Acts 16:15, ‘Lydia and her household;’ verse 33, ‘the Jailor and all his;’ 1 Cor. 1:16, ‘the household of Stephanas.’

“The scope of this argument may be comprehended in the two following propositions:

“First. The language employed is such as may be fitly used to represent the baptism of children.

“Secondly. The circumstances concur to establish a decided probability that pedobaptism is here intended.

“1. Whenever we would understand the meaning of any author, our first effort should be to explain his words according to the common usage, and the obvious design of the particular writer. If it be an ancient author, we must ascertain what was the use of the terms he employed at the time of his writing, and among the people to whom he wrote. The question, therefore, which we are now to decide is, Does olkozoikos (translated ‘household’), the word which is used in Acts 16:15; 1 Cor. 1:16, properly include infants? The sacred history informs us that certain persons, with their households, were baptized. The question is, Does the phraseology properly denote that infants were, or might have been baptized? I am fully apprised that the more informed reader will deem it wholly unnecessary and gratuitous for me to adduce formal proof of the affirmative of this question; but for the sake of those who may not readily appreciate how terms are used in the Bible, and also that the final argument may not seem to rest barely on assertion. or the mere authority of names, I cannot withhold a few statements. Olkozoikos primarily denotes a house, that is, a building or edifice, domus. But by a very common rule of language it also signifies, all that dwell in a house; that is, a family, including parents, children, domestics, etc.—all those persons whom we range under the general title of family or household.

“The point to be ascertained is, whether infants are naturally and as a matter of course included in this phrase. The opponents of infant baptism take the ground that infants cannot be proved to have been included in the households which the apostles baptized, because they are not specified, and it is well known that there are households, or families, without infant children. We take the ground that, although olkozoikos does not specify children, yet children are properly included within the term, as much as parents, or servants; and the presumption is that they are always thus included, unless there is a specification to the contrary. The word ‘family’ does not necessarily specify parents—a family may be constituted, or subsist, without the relation of parents,—but does this authorize us to infer that parents are never included in this word unless they are specified by a distinct and appropriate appellation” The same may be said of servants. “The words olkos, familia, and household, include the idea of servants as constituting a part of those who live together in the same house; still neither of these terms is the proper one to denote a servant distinctively, and there may be families where there are no servants. But are we authorized to infer, hence, that servants are never included in these words, unless they are specified distinctively by some adjunct? For instance, it is said Lydia and her household were baptized. From this we argue that as children are properly included under the general term household, therefore the presumption is, children were baptized,” etc.

You will note the fact that Hibbard in this argument says there are three places in the Bible in which household baptisms are mentioned, but in truth there are four. Why did he leave out one? Let us examine the one he left out, and we will clearly see why he has left it out. Hibbard has left out the baptism of Cornelius and his family. Why did he leave it out? Because it is unmistakably against his unreasonable, unscriptural and absurd theory. (See Acts 10:22, 24, 44, 46-48.) Peter preached the Gospel to Cornelius and his household, and “The Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word,” and “they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God;” and the apostle “commanded them to be baptized in the name of Christ Jesus.” It is positively stated that the centurion (Cornelius) “feared God with all his house.” Were there infants in his house? If we reason with Hibbard we are forced to say that the word “household” includes infants, and therefore there were infants in Cornelius' house, and they were baptized. But the narrative tells us that the whole house of Cornelius “feared God.” Can infants fear God? Certainly not. We are told that the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word, and they spake with tongues and magnified God. Did the Holy Ghost fall on infants in the case we are considering? Did infants, or can infants magnify God? Certainly infants did not nor cannot magnify God. We clearly see that there were no infants in this household.

The reader can see without the least shadow of a doubt why Hibbard leaves out the household of Cornelius in his account of household baptisms of the New Testament. It is against his pet theory. He leaves out or explains away whatever he finds in the Bible against his theories. If the basic principle of pedobaptists when applied to infant baptism is false, the final conclusion must naturally and necessarily be false. But this basic principle is not only laid down by pedobaptists, but it is also conceded by Baptists. The principle that I refer to is that the baptized individual must possess that which baptism signifies.

1. Baptism signifies a seal, or is a seal of the covenant relation that has been made between the individual and his God.

2. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward purity. But infants are not capable of entering into any covenant relation with God. This fact is so self-evident that we will not argue it further.

LET US now consider the second thing for which baptism stands or signifies, viz.: An outward sign of an inward purity. Pond, a pedobaptist, in his book on “Christian Theology,” page 394, says:

“Infants have moral character from the first, and this character is sinful. We touch not the question here, On what grounds infants are to be regarded as sinners? But the fact of their sinfulness we hold to be susceptible of abundant proof. In support of it we urge—

“1. That infants are the descendants of Adam, the father of us all. The Scriptures assure us that all the descendants of Adam, without an exception, are sinners. Through the offence of one ‘the many are dead’—spiritually dead. ‘By one man's disobedience the many are made sinners.’ ‘By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.’ (Rom. 5:15-19.) There is no evading the force of these passages. They represent the posterity of Adam, universally, as somehow sinners, dead in sin, and under condemnation in consequence of his first offence. We have only to ask, then, Are infants among the posterity of Adam? Are they his children?