There has always been a tendency in the Church, considered as an earthly institution, toward backsliding. It was so with ancient Israel. God said of them, "My people are bent to backsliding from me." Hos. 11: 7. It is so with the Church of to-day.

     "The Churches of Galatia" manifested this tendency, even under the ministry of inspired men. In his Epistle to those Churches St. Paul found it necessary to say to them, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another Gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal. 1: 6-8.

     The Epistle to the Hebrews was evidently written to safeguard those to whom it is addressed from this well-nigh universal tendency. They, having been accustomed to a religion that continuously appealed spectacularly to the senses, and which consisted largely in impressive rites and ceremonies, as also in "the works of the law," were peculiarly in danger of turning again to "the beggarly elements" from which Christ had delivered them.

     The tendency to spiritual declension is occasioned by the natural weakness of humanity; by the spiritual sluggishness of even Christian men and women; by the prevailing lack of principle among the rank and file of those who compose the nominal Church; by the susceptibility of human beings to being influenced by those worldly excitements which are unfriendly to spiritual religion; by the fact that "struggle for existence" is the law of the spirit-life as well as of the physical; by the law of "reversion to type," which operates in the spiritual as well as in the natural realm; by the inculcation of error through false teachers; and by the tendency of all carnal traits among God’s professed people to work throughout the entire body, like leaven in the meal, until the whole is leavened, or corrupted, by carnal principles.

     So clearly did President Finney recognize this tendency of the Church to backsliding that, in the first of his "Lectures on Revivals of Religion," he says: "A revival of religion presupposes a declension. Almost all the religion in the world has been produced by revivals. God has found it necessary to take advantage of the excitability there is in mankind to produce powerful excitements among them, before He can lead them to obey. Men are spiritually so sluggish, and there are so many things to lead their minds off from religion, and to oppose the influence of the Gospel, that it is necessary to raise an excitement among them, till the tide rises so high as to sweep away opposing obstacles. They must be so excited that they will break over these counteracting influences, before they will obey God. Not that the excited feeling is religion, for it is not; but it is excited desire, appetite, and feeling that prevents religion. * * *

     "The great political, and other worldly excitements that agitate Christendom, are all unfriendly to religion, and divert the mind from the interests of the soul. Now these excitements can only be counteracted by religious excitements. And until there is religious principle in the world to put down irreligious excitements, it is vain to try to promote religion, except by counteracting excitements. This is true in philosophy, and it is a historical fact."[1]

     Toward the middle of the nineteenth century Methodism in the United States had begun to manifest "its abandonment of the heroic ideals of the elder time" in a most lamentable degree, and well-nigh universally.

     The Methodist Episcopal Church of that day had come to accept very largely the Moravian view of holiness, or sanctification, as taught by Count Zinzendorf, the gist of which is, as stated by Mr. Wesley, that "We are sanctified wholly the moment we are justified, and are neither more nor less holy to the day of our death; entire sanctification, and justification, being in one and the same instant."[2]

     The original teaching of Methodism on this point is set forth by Mr. Wesley as follows:
 

"Q. When does inward sanctification begin ?"

"A. The moment a man is justified. (Yet sin remains in him, yea, the seed of all sin, till he is sanctified throughout.) From that moment a believer gradually dies to sin, and grows in grace."[3]

"Q. Is this death to sin, and renewal in love, gradual or instantaneous?

"A. A man may be dying for some time; yet he does not, properly speaking, die, till the instant the soul is separated from the body; and in that instant he lives the life of eternity. In like manner, he may be dying to sin for some time; yet he is not dead to sin, till sin is separated from his soul; and in that instant he lives the full life of love. And as the change undergone, when the body dies, is of a different kind, and infinitely greater than any we had known before, yea, such as till then it is impossible to conceive; so the change wrought, when the soul dies to sin, is of a different kind, and infinitely greater than any before, and than any one can conceive till he experiences it. Yet he still grows in grace, and in the knowledge of Christ, in the love and image of God; and will do so, not only till death, but to all eternity."[4]

     Here we have a clear and definite statement from the immortal founder of Methodism himself of that doctrine which, more than any other, has ever distinguished the creed of Methodism from the creeds of all other evangelical bodies. In her doctrinal standards the Methodist Church still retained this doctrine, in its verbal form; but, while the doctrine remained unchanged in the various standards of the Church, there had been a general practical drift from the same throughout her pale, and especially among her ministry.

     In preaching the semi-centennial sermon before the Oneida Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the celebration of its fiftieth anniversary, in April, 1864, the Rev. E. Bowen, D. D., speaking of the changes which had occurred latterly among Methodists, said:

     "But now, the old Moravian heresy of the identity of the two states [i. e., of justification and entire sanctification] is pretty generally embraced among us; and its advocates, we are sorry to say, exhibit a virulence in their opposition to the Wesleyan view of sanctification which but too clearly betrays the cause of the change they have undergone—a manifest want of the Spirit of Christ, and the aversion they feel for the subjects of a living piety."

     This was the testimony of one of the most venerable men of Methodism in his day, a man not given to rashness of statement, but who weighed well his words, and kept within the bounds of truth and sobriety. Moreover, the foregoing statement has never been successfully challenged during the more than fifty years that have since passed away. It is cited here in proof of the allegation made that, while Methodism held nominally to the primitive Wesleyan standard of doctrine regarding sanctification, there had been a general practical drifting toward the Zinzendorfian view, that sanctification and justification are identical. Further proof of this fact will appear in abundance in subsequent chapters of this work.

     With this practical drift away from her most distinguishing doctrine and experience, came, as a consequence, the lowering of the tone of Methodism regarding all that is vital to Christian experience, discipline, character, and fruitfulness. So great and general was the spiritual desolation that spiritually-minded men and women found Jeremiah’s lamentation expressing the feeling that burdened and oppressed them:

"How is the gold become dim! how is the most pure gold changed! The stones of the sanctuary are poured out at the head of every street.

The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, How are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter !" etc. Lam. 4: 1, 2.

     In its primitive purity Methodism had been Scriptural and strict in its attention to matters of Church discipline. The General Rules, the Baptismal Vow, the Church Covenant, and the Rules for a Preacher’s Conduct; the directions of the Church concerning dress, class-meetings, and attendance at the sanctuary services; and also the advices regarding free seats in Church buildings, as well as regarding economy and plainness in the erection of such structures; were generally regarded as parts of the Book of Discipline to be observed, and, where not otherwise observed, to be enforced in a Scriptural and disciplinary way. In fact, the Discipline was looked upon generally, not merely as a monument of "heroic ideals of the elder time," but as a book of rules for holy living, applicable alike to both preachers and laymen, and which could be grievous only to the unregenerate and the backslidden. These were things, which, according to the primitive idea of Methodism, made for the strengthening and upbuilding of Christian character in the individual and in the Church collectively—fruits of holiness, the absence of which, or indifference to which, indicated defection of the heart from God.

     Whether these principles were Scriptural or unscriptural, whether right or wrong, whether wise or unwise, Methodism was originally built up, and also won those illustrious victories of "the elder time," on such views of Christian experience and discipline as the foregoing; and the Methodisms of later generations are obligated, by virtue of their claim to be in the line of direct succession from original Methodism, as also by their professed belief that "all these things His Spirit writes on truly awakened hearts," to treat them with the utmost seriousness, and to "walk by the same rule and mind the same thing."

     However, at the period of which we write Methodism, as illustrated by the Methodist Episcopal Church, was very far gone from original righteousness in regard to these particulars. The Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification as a second work of grace attainable and obligatory in the present life to all believers, was generally ignored, and by not a few even in the ministry was treated with ridicule and contempt. This naturally led to great looseness regarding, the doctrines of the new birth, the witness of the Spirit, and practical holiness in many of its most important details. The prevailing type of Christian experience became decidedly shallow, and the fervor and spirituality which had once been chief characteristics of Methodist worship were so uncommon that, when now and then they would be manifest, they were generally regarded and treated as outbursts of fanaticism, which it was dangerous to allow and wise to disparage and oppose. Such manifestations were more liable to be the occasion of Church discipline than were the plainest violations of the General Rules.

     Moreover, the worst feature of the case was, that not only the Bishops generally, but the General Conference as well, notwithstanding the fact that every ordained Methodist preacher was solemnly pledged to do all in his power "to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word," allowed themselves to sanction the rise of the Zinzendorfian heresy within the pale of Methodism, and even to regard with complacency the consequent defection of the Church from her primitive standards of discipline, experience, and unworldliness of life. The condition was at least an approach toward that of Judah in Jeremiah’s time, regarding which the prophet testified, "A wonderful and horrible thing is come to pass in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so." Jer. 5: 31.

     The period of which we write was a transitional period in the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It still retained, in various localities, a goodly degree of that vital religion, fervor, simplicity, plainness, and general non-conformity to the world which characterized it in primitive days, and were the only justification of its existence as a separate religious denomination. But early in the period spiritual declension set in, and a world-ward trend began. This defection "was accelerated when the United States census disclosed the fact that the Methodist Episcopal Church was the largest Protestant denomination in the country, and had the greatest amount of Church property. This gratifying intelligence was often dwelt upon in the Church periodicals, and in addresses at the Conferences, and at other large gatherings."

     Self-gratulation soon made its evil effects visible. Why should a people who had become so numerous, strong, wealthy and influential continue to be so singular? Why erect such plain houses of worship as they had done in the former times? Why insist upon modesty and plain. ness of attire? Why continue to be so unlike the nations round about them? Why incur the displeasure of those in lofty stations, of those who abounded in wealth, of those who were the élite of society, who otherwise might patronize their services and be drawn into their communion? Had they not hitherto been too narrow and exclusive? Would it not be wise to broaden Methodism so as better to adapt it to the higher social classes? Such appears to have been the tacit reasonings of prominent and influential leaders in the Methodist ranks, judging from the changes that soon occurred.

     So late as 1846 the Methodist Episcopal Discipline contained the following questions and answers:

     "Is anything advisable in regard to building Churches ?"

     "Let all our Churches be built plain and decent, and with free seats; but not more expensive than is absolutely unavoidable; otherwise the necessity of raising money will make rich men necessary to us. But if so, we must be dependent on them, yea, and governed by them. And then, farewell to Methodist Discipline if not doctrine too."

     The directions regarding dress were as explicit and positive as those concerning the erection of Churches:

     "Should we insist on the rules concerning dress?"

     "By all means. This is no time to give encouragement to superfluity of apparel. Therefore, receive none into the Church till they have left off superfluous ornaments." "In visiting the classes be very mild, but very strict." "Allow of no exempt case: better one suffer than many."

     While the Discipline was thus plain, positive, and mandatory regarding these things, it soon began to be practically ignored by influential ministers and laymen as out of date in these requirements; whereupon worldly conformity in these and other directions rapidly increased, until, at length, those changes in the Discipline were easily effected which made such sections as the foregoing no longer mandatory, but merely advisory, and that without possibility of enforcing the advices given. The effect of these changes was "to paralyze the arm of the Church in the training of her children for heaven, and to open the door of spiritual licentiousness and pride," so that, as Dr. Bowen put it in his semi-centennial sermon, "‘The world, the flesh, and the devil’ might now make their onslaught upon us, and riot upon our sacred altars, with no penal inhibition to arrest their depredations."

[1] Pages 1 and 2.
[2] “Wesley’s Works,” Vol. vi, p. 22.
[3] Do Vol. vi, p. 490.
[4] Works, Vol. v1., p. 505.