Chapter XXI: Introduction (4)

“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.”