Chapter XXII: Introduction (5)

“I trust, madam, that neither you nor any of this company will so far misunderstand me as to imagine that I mean for _individual members_ what I say of the _ecclesiastical establishment_ to which they belong. Some of the best and most devoted men and women that have ever honored the Christian name were Roman Catholics; yet you as much as I believe that the Roman Catholic hierarchy is so much a _rebel_ that it is the very ‘_antichrist_,’ ‘_the man of sin_,’ and the ‘_son of perdition_,’ foretold in the Scriptures. Some of her _members_ are good subjects of Jesus, who have been deluded and deceived; but the _organization_ is antichristian and destructive to true obedience to Christ. So I do not deny that in these other so-called Churches there is a vast amount of _individual piety_; I do not question that there is much truth believed and acted out unto the salvation of souls; but what I say is this: these establishments have, by their constitutional laws, by the arrangements of their systems of judicature, as adopted in their convocations and published in their books of discipline, confessions of faith, etc., _set aside_ the law of Christ, and substituted _their own_. And _this act I CALL_ an act of open and systematic and deliberate _rebellion_. If you can find a milder and yet appropriate name for it, you may call it something else. Christ the King says, ‘Tell it to the Church.’ They say, No, you are _not_ to tell it to _the Church_. You shall tell it to the ‘_minister in charge_,’ or to a ‘committee appointed by him.’ If he or they do not decide to please both you and the minister, you may tell it to the quarterly conference, etc. _Christ the King_ says, ‘Tell it to _the Church_.’ They say, No, you shall tell it to the session, and if the session do not decide to please both parties, then tell it to the presbytery, to the synod, and general assembly. _Christ the King_ says, ‘Tell it to _the Church_.’ They say, No, you shall tell it to the _bishop_, or those whom the bishop may have appointed. The Church, that is, the assembly or ‘congregation to which both the brethren belong,’ is not known. The whole business is taken out of the hands of the Church, where Christ commanded it to be decided, and placed in other hands, to which Christ gave no authority. If this is not a _nullification_ of the law of the King, and substituting another in its place, I do not see what could constitute that act. If this is not rebellion, how can a Church rebel? The same body to which the brother was to _tell_ his grievance was that which should _decide_ upon it; and _its_ decision was to be final. From it there was no appeal. When he had the decision of _the Church_, that was the end of the matter. Now, if you really believe that _the Church_, as Christ here used the words, was the _local society_, how dare you prevent the brother from going to it? and how dare you deny to it the right to hear and to decide? How dare you take the power from _the Church_, and give it to the minister and his committee, or to a quarterly or annual or general conference? If the Presbyterian considers the Church here spoken of to be the ‘local assembly of Christ’s people,’ how does he dare to change Christ’s law, and require the brother to tell it to the _session_, and by what authority can the case be taken up to a presbytery, synod, or general assembly? If, by the constitution of our government, the power to declare war and negotiate peace is given expressly to the general government at Washington, then any other organization that shall take upon itself to perform these specific acts, places itself in the attitude of a rebel. If you and these other religious establishments regard the Church here spoken of as the local assembly, nothing can be more clear than that you do not intend to obey Christ’s law; for you and they, in utter disregard of _his_ commandment to settle the difficulty _in the Church_, require it to be settled in altogether another place, and by altogether different authority. The authority which Christ expressly gave _the Church_ you have taken away from the Church, and placed in the hands of individuals, or certain ‘judicatory bodies.’”

“The Church,” replied the Methodist, “may very properly be said to do herself what she does by her authorized agents and representatives. These judicatory bodies are the agents of the Church, through whom she carries out her will.”

“Let us look into that a moment,” said Mr. Courtney. “The Church which Christ decreed should finally decide between the disaffected brethren, is ‘_the local society of which they both are members_.’ Was this not what you just now asserted?”

“Certainly it was.”

“And yet you tell us now that these judicatory bodies, these conferences, councils, synods, and assemblies, are the authorized representatives and agents of ‘_the Church_.’ Now, they may be the agents of those amalgamated bodies which you call the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, and the like; but they are not the agents of the _local society_ of which both these brethren were members. _Their act is not the act of that society._ Very often it is just the reverse of what that society had determined. They are not the servants, not the agents, but the _masters_ of that society. They make laws for that society. They require obedience from that society. They hold that society responsible to them, and not themselves responsible to it. If it refuses to sanction their act, it is liable at once to be cut off from what they call the body of Christ, as a corrupt and offensive member. If it rebels against their decree, or refuses to carry it into execution, it is liable itself to be excluded from what they call ‘the Church.’ If, then, Christ left the matter with the Church, _and the Church is the local society_ of which both the brethren are members, then these bodies are _usurpers_. They have usurped authority which Christ did not give them, and have taken it away from those to whom he did give it. Why, sir, even if the Church _had_ delegated her authority to conferences or councils, synods or assemblies, the act _would have been utterly invalid_. Christ could not sanction it. He gave the authority to the Church to be exercised there; and it can be delegated only by an open repudiation of HIS LAW as contained in this text. If it be the local society, therefore, that Christ referred to, then all the authority of your conferences, all the authority of sessions, presbyteries, synods, and councils, is given, claimed, and exercised, not merely without the sanction of the King, but in open disregard of his commandment. The Church that _gives_ it is a rebel. The body that receives and exercises it, so far from being in any sense a true Church of Jesus Christ, is, to say the least, an unauthorized intruder. Christ has no use for such a body. Christ never appointed such a body. Christ made the local Church supreme. She has no right to subordinate herself to any power on earth, and that day she does so she ceases to be a Church of Christ, for in HIS Churches _he alone is King_. She may ask _advice_ of sister Churches, or of wise and holy men, but she dare not and cannot delegate to others the supreme authority which Christ has vested in herself. His Church is not allowed to cull any man, or any set of men, its master. Its members are alike subject to Christ, and all alike responsible to him alone. But how, then, could they be governed? how could discipline be maintained? How could the purity of the body be preserved? There were laws, but how could they be applied, and by what authority enforced? This was the grand problem. In its solution, Paul says, the manifold wisdom of God was made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places. His plan was very simple, and, wherever it has been fairly tried, has been found perfectly effectual. He made every one a priest and king. He invested every member with the right to execute his laws, but only when assembled with the brethren. As many as could conveniently unite came voluntarily together and by mutual consent were constituted an ‘_ekklesia_,’ or official assembly, of Christ. It was subject to _his_ laws: it acted by _his_ authority: it used _his_ name to give a sanction to its acts; and as he had _authorized_ it, and conferred on it all its authority, so he promised to be in its midst by his Spirit, and to ratify in heaven what it did upon the earth. In this assembly, all were equal. There were no subjects and no lords. For the sake of order, it was needful to have some presiding officer, but he was chosen by the brethren. He was only for the time the chief among his equals. By this assembly the ordinances were administered. To this assembly belonged the duty to enforce Christ’s laws. It could not _make_ laws. It could not _change_ laws. That were to usurp the prerogative of its Master. It could only apply and execute Christ’s laws. It was to this body and no other that the brother was to go with his complaint; and when it had decided, no power on earth could reverse its decision. Each Church was complete within itself—independent of all earthly control, and subject only to the law of Christ. _This_ was the Church of Christ and of God. _This_ was the institution which Christ said, in the other chapter, he would build, and this was the body to which, in this, he directs the offended brother to carry his complaint. From this place we learn only one of its objects, but by turning to 1 Cor. xi. 20–34, you will see that it was in this official assembly that the ordinance of the Supper was observed. It was not as individuals, but as an _ekklesia_, an _official_ assembly of the members, that they brake the bread and drank the wine, in solemn and sad, yet joyful remembrance of his death. If you turn to Romans xiv. 1, you will find that it pertained to this body to decide who should be received as members. If you will examine the fifth chapter of 1st Corinthians, you will see that it was authorized and required to exclude from its membership the immoral and vicious, and give them over to Satan. From Gal. vi. 1, and 2 Cor. ii. 8, you may learn that it was empowered to restore the offender upon evidence of his repentance. From 2 Thess. iii. 6, it is evident that it was its solemn and imperative duty to disown and withdraw from those who _changed the ordinances_, or conducted in an unchristian manner.

“These duties and obligations were binding on each ekklesia for itself; and in their fulfilment it neither needed nor permitted the interference of any other. Even an inspired apostle, when writing to the Corinthians, would not take the case of discipline out of the hands of the Church; but only instructed them as to what the law of Christ required in regard to the offender. And, on his repentance, he did not undertake to thrust him back into the Church; but kindly _besought_ them to confirm their love to the penitent, lest he might be overwhelmed with overmuch sorrow.”

“I think,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “we may now pass on to the examination of those other passages which you said are commonly understood to refer to the Church universal. We seem to be getting on but slowly.”

“The general principle of interpretation which we have just settled,” said Mr. Courtney, “will help us more rapidly through the others. We have seen that both from the origin of the word ekklesia, and from its actual application in the many cases where it refers to a _real_ and _visible_ organization, it signified only a _local_ and independent body of Christians—never all Christians combined in one body. We have seen, moreover, that the word, without losing this meaning at all, may be employed in a general way, as the _name of the institution_ which Christ set up: just as we every day apply the name of an individual to the whole species or family to which that individual belongs: as when we say, the elephant is the most sagacious of brutes; or, the dog is the companion of man. Now, when the term ‘_the Church_’ is thus employed, it is no more needful to understand it as meaning all the Churches combined in one great Church, visible or invisible, than it is to suppose that the words ‘the elephant,’ or ‘the dog,’ thus used, must signify all the elephants in the world, combined in one unwieldy elephant; or that all the dogs are united into one immense dog, who is the companion of some giant man, comprising in his own person all the men upon the earth. Let us then apply this rule to the three passages in which Paul speaks of himself as having persecuted the Church: 1 Cor. xv. 9, Gal. i. 13, Phil. iii. 6. ‘For I am the least of the apostles, and not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.’ ‘For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it.’ ‘Concerning zeal, persecuting the Church.’

“It has been thought by some that Paul could have meant nothing less than the Church universal in these places. The truth is, he could have meant no other than the ‘Church which was at Jerusalem,’ for that was the _only_ Church that he ever persecuted. He had it in his heart to persecute that at Damascus also, if he should find one there; but he did not do it. Christ met him on the way, and changed the tiger to a lamb. And when Paul reached Damascus, it was to preach the faith he once destroyed; and be himself the object of the bitterest persecution from his former associates. But what if Paul _had_ actually persecuted a dozen or a hundred Churches? It would not follow that he meant to say that he had persecuted some vast visible or invisible organization, comprising in one body all the Church members on the earth. If I say that I have spent much time in hunting _the fox_, or killing _the deer_, I do not mean that I have hunted and killed some great ‘_universal_’ fox, or ‘_universal_’ deer. It is easy to understand that by hunting _any_ one individual fox I hunted ‘the fox;’ and by killing any one individual deer I killed ‘the deer.’ Why cannot we permit Paul to use words in the same way? If he persecuted any one individual Church, he persecuted ‘the Church.’

“This is plain, common sense. A sportsman can understand, though it may puzzle a doctor of divinity. By the way, it has always seemed very strange to me that men will not bring their _common sense_ with them when they come to examine into the meaning of the Scriptures. Suppose, Doctor, that a friend of yours in Louisiana should write to you in language like the following: ‘I am a cotton-planter, and yet am not worthy to be called a cotton-planter, because, some twenty years ago, I was bitterly opposed to Whitney and the cotton-gin.’

“What would you, or any of this company, think of that man’s common sense, who would gravely argue from these words that although the cotton-gin is a well-known machine, and there are a great many separate and distinct cotton-gins scattered about on thousands of plantations, yet, some twenty years ago, there must have been some great and complicated machine, composed of all the cotton-gins in the world, united into one _great cotton-gin_ ‘_universal_,’ or else this man could not have said, with any propriety, that he had been opposed to ‘_the cotton-gin_!’ Yet this is precisely what doctors of divinity are guilty of when they take it for granted, or try to prove that there must once have been, and must be still, some vast conglomerate body, visible or invisible, called the ‘_universal_’ Church, and composed of all the Christians or of all the Churches in the world; otherwise Paul could not, with any propriety, have said that he ‘persecuted _the Church_ of God.’”

“I think, sir,” said the Doctor, smiling, “we may consider these three passages as fairly disposed of.”

“Then let us take another. Turn to Ephesians iii. 10 and 21: ‘To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God.’ ‘Unto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.’

“The idea in the first of these two passages is, that the _angels_ of God, who are elsewhere called principalities and powers, might look at this wonderful contrivance of Jesus Christ for the execution of his laws and the promotion of the comfort and piety of his people, and see in it evidences of the wisdom of God. It was a _Divine_ contrivance, and characterized by infinite wisdom. _Nothing else could possibly have done so well._ Men have not believed this. _Men_ have all the time been tinkering at God’s plan, and trying to mend it. _Men_ have set it aside, and substituted others in its place; but to the _angels_ it appears the very perfection of wisdom. And it was one object of God in having the Church established, that his wisdom might, through it, be known to those heavenly powers and principalities. But now, what was this plan? What _was_ this Church? It was, as we have seen, a local assembly, in which each member was the equal of every other, and by whom, in the name of Christ and by authority from him, his ordinances were to be administered and his laws enforced. What is there in these texts which requires a grand collection of all the Churches into one, in order to make the language appropriate? Suppose a friend in England should write to me that he is about to publish a new history of the _steam-engine_, ‘in order that unto kings and princes, in their palaces and on their thrones, _might be made known through the engine the manifold skill of the inventor_:’ what would you think of that man’s common sense, even though he were a Doctor of Mechanics, who should insist upon it, that though the steam-engine was a definite and well-known machine, and there were a vast multitude of separate and distinct steam-engines, yet there must also be, in some way or other, a vast conglomerate ‘_universal_’ engine, consisting of all the steam-engines in the world united into one; or else the language of my friend, when he speaks of ‘showing the manifold skill of the inventor,’ through or by ‘the engine,’ is altogether unintelligible? Yet this is the way that doctors of divinity reason upon a similar expression of Paul.

“In the other passage he says, ‘Unto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.’ I might remark here, that the original says ‘_in_’ Jesus Christ; and some manuscripts read, in the Church, ‘_and_’ in Jesus Christ. But mere verbal criticism is not necessary to set us right in regard to the point about which we are at issue. Doctors of divinity say that the Church here spoken of must be the Church _universal_, or else the language of the apostle is altogether inappropriate, and has no meaning. Well, let us bring in our _common sense_, and try it.

“I take up a book written by some great admirer of the drama, and read, ‘Let the poetry of Shakespeare be honored in the theatre by managers and actors even to the end of time.’ Now, your doctor of divinity, reasoning on this as he does on Paul, would assure me that although there are a multitude of separate local theatres in almost every country of the civilized world, yet that there must, in some way or other, be somewhere or other some _one_ vast ‘_universal_’ theatre, consisting of all the theatres in the world combined in one, either visible or invisible, or else the language of this writer is inappropriate or meaningless; for the term ‘_the theatre_,’ used in this connection, can mean no less than this great world-embracing establishment; and, perhaps, he might refer me for further proof to the immortal bard himself, who says that ‘all the world’s a stage,’ etc. When will men learn to use their reason in religious as they do in other matters?”

“I grant,” said Doctor Thinkwell, “that we have now fairly disposed of six of these passages; but there are some remaining which I do not see what we can do with, unless we admit the existence of a general or universal Church: those for instance, which speak of the Church as the ‘_body_ of Christ, who is its _head_.’”

“There are a number of such passages,” replied Mr. Courtney. “The figure is bold and beautiful; and the Apostle Paul was very fond of it, for he employs it again and again. I have sometimes fancied that he must have borrowed it from Luke, the beloved _physician_, for no one so well as a physician could feel its full force and appropriateness. So far, however, from teaching the doctrine of a universal Church, either visible or invisible, it can only apply with any show of propriety to a single local organization. And to remove even the shadow of a doubt in regard to the matter, the apostle himself distinctly and in so many words _makes this application of it_. He employs this same illustration in his Epistle to the Colossians, in that to the Ephesians, and to the Romans and the Corinthians. And if in any one of these places the language may appear indefinite in its application, all the obscurity is removed by referring to the others. In Colossians, for example, there is the simple assertion, (Col. i. 18,) ‘And he is the head of the body, the Church,’ and, ver. 24, ‘For his body’s sake, which is the Church.’ To the Ephesians, Romans, and Corinthians, he presents it as an argument in favor of meekness and mutual affection and forbearance. The members of each Church were exhorted to love one another, for they were all _one body_, of which Christ was _the head_. They had different gifts and capacities: some were teachers, some were prophets, some could speak with tongues, and some had gifts of healing; some, perhaps, were without any of these extraordinary gifts, but none of them could be dispensed with: each was useful in his place. (Eph iv. 11–16.) All these were ‘necessary for the edifying’ (literally, the _building_ up) ‘of the body of Christ, that it might grow up into him which is the head, from whom the whole, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, maketh increase of the body to the building up of itself in love.’

“This language is very appropriate when used in reference to a single Church, whose members are all bound together with the bands of Christian brotherhood, and each is helper of the other’s joy and growth in grace. Such a body may well be said to be ‘_fitly joined together and compacted_.’ But now if you apply it to what people call the ‘_universal_’ Church, it is simply nonsense. _Where is your universal Church which is thus fitly joined together and compacted?_ Are Methodists, and Presbyterians, and Lutherans, and Baptists, and Episcopalians thus ‘_joined together and compacted_?’

“But it is needless to argue about it. The apostle himself determines what he meant by the body of Christ in these places, and that so plainly and definitely as to preclude the slightest possibility of mistake.

“Turn to Romans xii. 3–8: ‘For I say, through the grace given unto me, _to every man who is AMONG YOU_, not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think, but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. For as _we_ [each one of us] have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office, so we, [Church members], being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another,’ etc.

“Now, who were these _members_ of Christ’s body? Was it the different Churches which were all united to make one body? or was it the _individual members of the one Church_ at Rome, to which Paul was writing? It was ‘every man among them,’ ver. 3. It was _individual_ Church members who were members of the body, which body was _their own Church_—not different Churches who were members or _branches_ of some great ecclesiastical establishment.

“But now turn to 1 Cor. xii. 12, where the figure is carried out and elaborated in all its minute details, and its intended application expressed in so many words: ‘For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are [yet] one body: so also is Christ.’ Ver. 14, ‘For the body is not one member, but many.’ And then he goes on to explain how, though each member differs from the others in its capacities and uses, yet it is not only a part of the body, but absolutely essential to its completeness and its comfort. The body is not all eye, nor all ear, nor all hands or feet; but God has set every member of it in its proper place, and endowed it with capacity to perform its proper function. The eye cannot do without the feet, and the feet cannot get on well without the eye. And even those members that seem most feeble and least useful are yet in their place quite indispensable. No one can be taken away or injured but that all the rest will suffer. And then, in the 27th verse, to remove _all possible_ doubt about the application of the comparison, and to show to them and to us that he did not mean anybody else, but only the Corinthian Church itself, he says, ‘_Now YE are the body of Christ_, and members in particular.’”

“That is sufficient, sir,” replied the Doctor. “When Inspiration itself has made the application to a single local organization, it were sheer madness in me to insist that it must mean something else. You can go on to your other texts.”

“If Mrs. Percy will turn to the 5th chapter of Ephesians, she will find the word church occurring some five or six times in twice as many verses, and used in a sense very similar to that which we have just examined. Let us begin at the 22d verse: ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord; for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church; and he is the Saviour of the body. Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ so let the wives be unto their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shill a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.’”

“I do not see,” said Mr. Percy, “how we can limit the application of this language to the Church at Ephesus. It is the Church for which Christ died: that Church which he loved and gave himself to purchase: that Church which he is going to present to himself as a glorious Church, holy and pure, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.”

“Yes,” said Mr. Courtney, “it is the _same_ Church which he said he would _build_, in Matt. xvi. 18: the same Church to which he directed the offended brother to tell his grievance; and through which his wisdom was to be made known to the principalities and powers of heaven, and through which he is to be glorified for ever. And this, we have already seen, is not any _particular_ local Church—much less is it _all_ the Churches united into one great collective ‘universal’ Church. Read the 23d verse again. It furnishes the key to the right understanding of the whole passage. Christ is the head of this Church, which he loved, for which he died, and which he will sanctify and save—_just_ as the husband is the head of the wife. ‘The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church.’ Now, what is here meant by _the wife_? Is it all the wives in the whole wide world considered collectively as making one great conglomerate ‘universal’ wife? Not at all. The wife is put as a _representative word_. It stands as the general name or title of married women. It does not gather all married women into one immense wife, visible or invisible, ‘universal,’ but simply means that _every_ wife of the whole multitude has her own husband for her guide, her protector, and her lawgiver. And JUST so is Christ the head, the protector, the Saviour and ruler of his Church. As ‘the wife’ does not here mean all wives in one, so ‘the Church’ cannot mean all Churches in one. But the meaning is that each and every true Church of the whole multitude of Churches is connected to Christ by a union so intimate and tender that it resembles that between the husband and the wife; and, indeed, it is as though every Church were a part of his very self, ‘bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh.’

“The word church stands here, as in the other places of this sort which we have examined, not for a great amalgamated whole, but for _each one_ of all. Just as Paul, when he says, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, cannot possibly mean that all the unbelieving husbands in the world are to be regarded as constituting one great collective ‘universal’ husband, who is sanctified by one immense collective, visible or invisible, ‘universal’ wife, but only that each and every unbelieving husband stands in this relation to his own believing wife.

“This same rule applies to _all_ these passages, which seem at first glance, and have been generally supposed, to refer to all the multitude of Churches viewed collectively, as one great conglomerate Church. There is no such a Church: there never was such a Church; and, from the very nature of the case, there never can be such a Church upon the earth. We may _imagine_ something of the kind; and as the poet ‘gives to airy _nothings_ a local habitation and a name,’ so, when we have conceived of all Church members as though they were assembled in one vast _ekklesia_, we may give a name to this _conception_, and may call it the ‘Church universal,’ but it will have no more _reality_ when we have thus named it than it had before. It will still be a mere creation of the brain. And I do not discover that either Paul, or any other writer in the Word, ever conceived of it or named it. The Church of Christ, _as the executive body in his kingdom_, must of necessity be a visible and working, business-doing body. It cannot be invisible: it _cannot_ be universal. If it were, it could not be an actual (_ekklesia_) assembly.

“_The KINGDOM may be universal_. The kingdom includes all the Churches. The _visible_ kingdom includes all who have professed their faith in Christ, and been baptized, even though they may not be members of any Church. The Ethiopian officer was _in the visible kingdom_, when he and Philip came up out of the water, but he had not yet united with any Church.

“There is also an _invisible kingdom_ of Christ, which reaches farther still. Every one who has trusted in Christ, and in his heart has taken him for his Lord, is a subject of this kingdom. Christ’s people are not all within _his Church_. There are some _even in the realms of Antichrist himself_; for he says, when mystical Babylon, drunk with the blood of the saints, is about to be destroyed, ‘Come out of her, my people, lest ye be partaker of her plagues.’ The Church is not the kingdom, nor is the kingdom the Church; but the Church _is an institution of the kingdom_, just as the courts of law are an institution within the State—making a part of the State authorized by the laws of the State, and doing a certain kind of business under the authority of the State, but not constituting the State. It is true, nevertheless, that _every subject_ of the invisible kingdom is _required_, by Christ’s law, to become, if practicable, a subject of the _visible_, by a profession of his faith, and baptism; and it is also true, that it is the duty and the privilege of every such subject of the _visible kingdom_ to become, and continue, if possible, _a member of some Church_. It is only as a Church member that he can participate in the business of the kingdom, or partake of the emblems of the Saviour’s broken body and poured-out blood, in remembrance of him.

“We have now examined every place but one, and that will hardly give us any new light upon the question. It is Hebrews xii. 23—a passage confessedly highly figurative and very obscure. It seems to me most probable that the apostle employs the word here in its _common Greek sense_, as denoting merely an assembly, or convocation of select individuals; and not in its appropriated use at all. He is contrasting the Jewish economy with the Christian dispensation in general. Their fathers, under the law, came to Mount Sinai—a literal mountain that could be touched; a mountain that glowed with fire, and was shrouded with the blackness of darkness and tempest. They heard the piercing sound of the awful trumpet, and a voice spake such fearful words that those who heard them entreated that they might never hear them any more. And so terrific was the scene that even Moses quaked with fear. _Such_ was the terrible aspect of the _law_. But ye, who live under the gospel, have come to Mount Zion—a mountain of peace, security, and beauty—unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and Church of the first-born, which are written (or registered) in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel. _These_ are the things presented by the gospel.

“Now, they are represented as having come up to the _heavenly_ Jerusalem. It is _there_ they meet with the countless company of angels. It is _there_ they find the ‘_panegurei_’ rendered ‘general assembly,’ but meaning, literally, a great _festal_ gathering, and there they meet an ‘ekklesia’ of the ‘_first-born_,’ of those who are _special favorites_; for such was the Hebrew use of the term; or of those who had the birthright, and who were _registered_ in heaven.

“Now, the Greek ‘ekklesia’ was an assembly of called and qualified citizens, invested with certain rights, and _registered_ in the city records. So Paul speaks here of a _chosen assembly_ of privileged persons, whose names were _registered_ in _heaven_, as having their citizenship there.”

“Let it mean what it may,” said Theodosia; “I do not see that we can learn any thing from it about the constitution and nature of the Church of Christ _on earth_, unless it be that it should consist only of believers whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

“Well,” said the strange lady, “I am glad you have gotten through with this tedious task at last. I never knew before how much the Scriptures said about the Church.”

“Nor I,” said Theodosia; “and I am glad to find their teachings are so uniform and simple. I shall hereafter always _know what a Church is_, and what is _not_ a Church. Do you not think, Doctor, you will now be able to know one when you find it?”

“I must confess, madam, that what we have found differs so much from my preconceptions—from all that I was taught in childhood to regard as the Church, and which I have always thought of as the Church—that I must take a little time to go over the ground again. I want to think about it, and pray over it; and then I may be prepared to answer your question. At present, I am sure all the company must be weary of this long discussion. Let us postpone any further conversation on the subject till to-morrow.”

FOURTH DAY’S TRAVEL.

In which are discovered some of the distinctive marks by which one may know a true Church of Jesus Christ, wherever he may chance to find it.

IT was singular what strange reports of there conversations reached that part of the boat where the gentlemen passengers sat to play cards and smoke cigars.

The prevailing impression which was made upon those who heard them was, that two gentlemen and a very agreeable lady (who, by the way, thought she was very smart) were trying their best to persuade that old infidel, Dr. Thinkwell, that if he would only be immersed, he might be sure to go to heaven; but if not, he was as certain to be sent to hell as there was any God, or any truth in the Bible.

Some, however, thought there was a difference of opinion on this subject among the disputants; and that it was _only the Baptist preacher_, Percy, that consigned all those who had not beer immersed to endless perdition; and that he had assured the Methodist that it would be as hard to find a Methodist in heaven as to find a mackerel in a horse-pond. Another declared that he had heard a part of what was said, and could assure the crowd that they proved every thing by Scripture; “and that,” said he, “is of itself enough to show that the Bible is of no account; for any thing in the world that anybody wishes to prove, he can find the text for it. Why, sirs,” continued he, “I heard that fellow Courtney say that he had over a hundred texts to show that there was only one Church in the world, and that one was somewhere in the old country.”

“One thing is certain,” replied his friend: “they can’t convince me that old Parson Tompkins don’t know what the Bible says; and he is just as strong a Presbyterian as I ever saw.”

“The fact is,” said another, “they are all of them right, and all of them wrong; and they ought to have some charity for one another, and not be sending each other to hell, just because they do not happen to feel disposed to wade to heaven through the floods of Jordan.”

Of such remarks, however, our disputants were happily ignorant; and having themselves no doubt about the truthfulness and the sufficiency of the sacred record, returned to it with perfect confidence that they should be able to find in it the pattern of the Christian Church, so perfectly and so plainly drawn that they would have no difficulty in recognizing it, and by the pattern be enabled to identify the institution as still existing in the world.

“If I did not fail of my purpose yesterday,” said Mr. Courtney, “I showed you in the Scriptures—and that not from detached and isolated texts, but from a careful comparison and elaborate examination of _all_ the places in which the word ekklesia (or Church) occurs—that this institution is not the kingdom, but an organization for certain specific purposes within the kingdom, like the court or the jury within our State.”

“I have been looking over the facts and arguments again in my own mind,” replied the Doctor, “and I must confess I see no perversion of the texts, and no fallacy in the logic, and must admit that you are right; but yet, I do not see that am much nearer the accomplishment of the object which I have in view. You have convinced me that the Church is a local and independent organization, somewhere within the kingdom; but you have not showed me what it is, or told me where I can find it.

“I am, I trust, a member of Christ’s invisible kingdom: I desire to be incorporated into the visible kingdom. To do so, I understand that I must make public profession of my faith and be baptized. To whom shall I make this profession? and by whose direction shall I be baptized? This falls within the province of the _Church_. If these are the _laws_ of the kingdom, and the Church is the executive and administrator of those laws, then I must apply to the Church, in its official capacity, to receive and to baptize me.”

“Perfectly correct, sir.”

“But I do not know what or which is the Church. _You_ will tell me it is to be found among the Baptists. Another says, among the Presbyterians. My parents taught me that the Episcopal was the Church; and our Methodist friend assures me that I am at perfect liberty to take my choice among a dozen claimants, and where I can best enjoy myself is the true Church for me. Now, what I want to know is this: how can I tell which of all these is right? Can you show me in the Scriptures any such distinctive _signs or marks_ as will enable me to recognize a true Church when I see it?”

“Most certainly I can. The Scriptures are very plain, and abundantly explicit, on this subject.

“We have already seen that the first exemplification of the _ekklesia_ or Church of Christ was given at Jerusalem. This was the model after which the other New Testament Churches were fashioned; and the same pattern must regulate the constitution, membership, and rites of the Christian Churches down to the present time.

“Human constitutions may admit of amendment, but the Divine enactment, not being capable of improvement, can never be amended. To know, therefore, what a Christian Church is _now_, we have only to learn what was _essential is it then_.”

“That is self-evident, Mr. Courtney; but we must be very careful that we do not confound what was essential with what was accidental, and, consequently, indifferent.”

“Most assuredly, sir, we cannot be too careful; and it may, therefore, be well for us to determine beforehand what _was of necessity essential_. All else we may cast aside.”

“The first Churches, for instance,” suggested Theodosia, “met in private residences, or in the Jewish synagogues; but that was a mere incident, and they would have been just as really Churches if they had met in splendid temples, or in the leafy forest.”

“Or,” said Mr. Percy, “in ‘the caves and dens of the earth,’ as they were early compelled to do. But as this was an official institution acting under authority of another, and in his name, there must have been some _constitutional_ limitation as to its organization—as to who should compose it, and as to the extent of its authority. Christ, as king in this new kingdom which he set up, had enacted certain laws and established certain ordinances. For the proper understanding and administration of these laws and ordinances, he appointed the Church as his judiciary and executive. Now, this judiciary and executive must consist of certain _persons_, organized upon some definite plan, and governed in their official work by some specific and designated rules. Thus much, at least, must be regarded as _essential_.”

“Will it not be better,” inquired the Doctor, “to take up one point at a time, and satisfy ourselves regarding it, before we go to another? Thus we shall avoid any confusion, and remove even the shadow of a doubt.”

“Very good,” replied Mr. Courtney, “and let us first ascertain of what character of _persons_ a Church must consist to be regarded by us as a true _Church of Jesus Christ_; and I say, 1st. _It must be composed of those who are members of the visible kingdom._ This is self-evident, (after what we have already settled, viz.: that the Church is an institution within the kingdom, charged with the administration of the laws and ordinances of the kingdom;) for it is inconceivable that the King has intrusted the execution of these laws and the administration of these ordinances to the hands of those who are not in the kingdom; and we have seen already that no one can be a member of the visible kingdom who has not made a profession of _penitence_ for sin, and _faith_ in Christ, and upon this profession _been baptized_ in obedience to his commandment.

“But, lest this may seem to be too summary a method of disposing of the matter, let us go back to the Record again; and, by the same means that we discovered who are members of the visible kingdom, learn who are members of the visible Church.

“We are agreed about one thing, I suppose; and that is, _that whatever was essential to Church membership in the days of the =apostles=, and in the Churches organized by them, is_ STILL ESSENTIAL.”

“Of course,” replied the Doctor, “that needs no proof; for since the time of the apostles no one has been authorized to change the constitution of the Church. They established it as they were instructed by Jesus and the Holy Spirit, whom he sent to teach them, and bring all things to their remembrance. What was settled by their precepts or by their example, can never be unsettled, amended, or modified by any authority upon earth. Whatever, therefore, they made the Church to be, that _was_ the Church, and _only_ that must it be _now_ and _always_, till Christ comes again.”

“Very good. Now let us go to the Book, and see what the apostolic Churches were in _regard to their membership_, as this is the point now under consideration.

“You will remember that the first example of the _ekklesia_, or Church of Christ, was that given at Jerusalem. The people of whom it was composed had been ‘prepared’ and ‘made ready’ by John. He had admitted them _into the kingdom_ by baptizing them upon a profession of their penitence and faith, according to the command of Him by whom he was sent. The precise time when the first _Church_ was constituted out of these materials, does not certainly appear. We first find it _transacting the business_ of the kingdom, as an ‘ekklesia,’ in Acts i. 15, 26. It then consisted of only one hundred and twenty, who met in an upper room, and, after prayer, proceeded to elect one of their number to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Judas. These were all ‘disciples:’ they had consequently been instructed. They were all professed believers in Christ; and they were all people of prayer. We are justified, therefore, in the conclusion that they were _all professed believers_. They were men and women, but _no children_. Shortly after this, we read that three thousand were added to this _ekklesia_ in a single day; and from henceforth it is designated ‘the _ekklesia_ [or Church] which was at Jerusalem.’ The original hundred and twenty were praying men and praying women—disciples of the Lord. The three thousand were such as had been ‘pricked in their hearts;’ (Acts ii. 37;) were old enough to ‘repent’ and ‘gladly receive’ the gospel; and when they had done so they were _baptized_, and added to the Church; and, like the original number, ‘they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.’ (Acts i. 42.) It seems, therefore, that not a single one of these was a little, helpless baby. Those that continued to be added daily (verse 47) were ‘such as should be saved;’ or, as the original reads, literally ‘_the saved_.’ They were consequently of necessity believers, since no others can be called ‘the saved;’ and especially, since all experience snows that infants added in their infancy, if always saved, are often saved in sin. The five thousand others that were added to them, (Acts iv. 4,) were those who had heard and understood the word preached, and had believed it to the saving of their souls; and so were the ‘multitudes, both of men and women,’ who were added as recorded in Acts v. 14. So, also, the great company of the priests (Acts vi. 7) were not admitted till they had become ‘obedient to the faith.’ This Church, therefore, evidently consisted of ‘disciples’—of those who could hear and understand the word—had believed it and repented of their sins, and then had been baptized. Here are over eight thousand men and women expressly mentioned, besides the ‘multitudes’ of others, who are said to have been added to this _ekklesia_, _but there was not one of them who was not a PROFESSED BELIEVER_. If there were any infants, Luke was a false historian. So we way set it down as one of the characteristic marks of a true Church of Christ that it consists of professed believers, and not of ‘professed _believers and their children_,’ as some teach, nor of believers and _all_ the children that can be procured to receive the rite of baptism, whether the parents be believers or not, as our Methodist friends maintain, in common with the largest number of the advocates of Pedobaptism.”

“Stop a little, if you please, Mr. Courtney,” exclaimed Theodosia; “we shall probably have occasion to refer to these characteristic marks again and again, and I would like to have them written down.”

So saying, she produced a little tablet from her reticule, and wrote upon it as follows:

Signs or marks by which to recognize a true Church of Jesus Christ.

I. It consists only of professed believers in Christ.

“If you consider me a party to this investigation,” said the Methodist, “I will take the liberty to enter my protest against the adoption of this test.”

“And so will I, by permission of this company, whom I take to be really desirous to know all the truth as it is in Jesus.”

The last speaker was a man in the full prime of life, though a few white hairs were prematurely mingled with his jet-black locks. He had a large and well-proportioned person, but he was very pale, and his intense and large black eyes looked larger and blacker in contrast with the marble brow above, and the ashy, bloodless complexion of the face below. He had been listening all the morning most attentively, and had occasionally made a little note in his memorandum-book of the points presented, but evidently with the design of using them at some other time rather than the present. As he spoke, he laid his hand emphatically upon the edge of the table, and showed that, however reluctant he might have been to enrage in the conversation before, he was now quite ready to take his part.

“I have listened,” continued he, addressing Mr. Courtney, “with much pleasure to most of your remarks, for I love to witness a fearless and bold investigation of any subject, and especially of one connected with our holy religion. I have been confined to my berth from sickness till this morning, and so have not enjoyed the pleasure of being present at your previous conversations, which, I understand, have occupied a part of every morning for several days; and I had no intention of taking any part in your discussion. I hope, however, you will pardon me if I suggest that there is really no foundation for this _test_ which you have so plausibly set up, and endeavored to establish by such an ingenious array of Scripture proof.”

“Of course,” rejoined the Methodist, “we cannot admit such a test as this, for if we do, it will at _once unchurch_ almost the whole of Christendom.”