Theodosia Ernest. Volume II.: or, Ten Days’ Travel in Search of the Church. (continued 3)

“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.”

“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.”

“That is true,” said the other, “but it is not upon that ground that I object to it. I understand that the only appeal in this discussion is to the Holy Word. And although for myself I feel bound to interpret that word in accordance with what ‘the Church’ has in every age and every country understood it to express, yet, so fully am I convinced that the Church has understood it according to its natural and legitimate signification, that I am quite willing to appeal to that word as it stands recorded, and take each sentence in its common and proper acceptation as the ordinary sense of the language may require; and the objection which I have to the test proposed is that it is really unscriptural: it is not sustained by the Record.”

“That is, certainly,” replied Mr. Courtney, “a valid ground of objection. We desire to find the Church which was established by Christ and the apostles. We recognize no authority but the Bible. We know that tradition is a liar; but God’s word we know is very truth. As Protestants, we believe it is a sufficient rule, both of our faith and practice. What we cannot find there we do not feel bound to recognize as of any binding force; and we, as individuals, each one accountable for himself to the God of the Bible, feel bound each to examine and learn its teachings for himself. If you can receive the teachings of the Church, it is because you have already settled the question for yourself what the Church really is. But that is the very question about which we are at issue. We, as yet, know not what the Church is, nor where it is, and consequently we can neither ask for nor receive her interpretations. But if you will come to this Book, and let us examine for ourselves into the meaning of the words, we will gladly entertain any and all the objections you may offer.”

“I think, sir,” replied the Bishop, (for it was no other than the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of ⸻,) “I think, sir, I understand your position; and I am willing to meet you on your own ground; and what I say is simply this: It is not true that the apostolical Churches consisted only, and in all cases, of adult believers.”

“Then we must set aside our test,” replied Mr. Courtney; “but you do not expect us to take your word for it. You will, of course, tell us what others were admitted to Church membership by the apostles, and point us to the chapter and the verse, that we may see it in the Record for ourselves.”

“Certainly, my dear sir, I will show it to you in the Book;” and as he said so he drew the Bible towards him, and turned to the sixteenth chapter of Acts. “It must be admitted,” said he, “that the account given of the Church at Jerusalem makes no special mention of any but such as you have designated; but it does not follow of necessity that there were no others. We do not read that the apostles ever were baptized, but yet we have no doubt they were; and, though there is no record made of the baptism and consequent Church membership of the children and families of the Jerusalem Christians, yet, since we know that elsewhere the apostles baptized the whole household upon the faith of the head of the house, and since Peter, in that discourse in which he first proclaimed the tidings and the terms of Christ’s salvation to the Jews, assured them that the promise was not merely to them, but to their children, I think we are justified in concluding that they must have afterwards received the children of the Jerusalem Christians—though there is no record of the fact. And this assumption is greatly strengthened by the circumstance that we read neither in the Scriptures, nor in any other history of those days, of any excitement or commotion upon the subject of excluding the children, as there surely must have been had so great a change in the economy of the Church of God been actually made; for, under the regulations of the Jewish Church, children had always been admitted to membership, and could not now have been excluded without occasioning at least some questioning, if not remonstrance.”

“You may think us very unreasonable,” replied Mr. Percy, “but we can be satisfied with nothing less than some plain precept telling us that children may become Church members, or some example showing that they did become Church members. Our investigation of the Scriptures has taught us already that the Church is a business-doing body: a body to which Christ, the King, intrusted the execution of his laws and the administration of his ordinances. We cannot conceive of such a body being composed of little children either in whole or in part; and, unless you will show us the command that brought them in, or some example of their actually being in, we must doubt if they ever were in. In the Church at Jerusalem, the only one which we have yet examined in reference to this point, we have found the record of the admission of eight thousand members, and great multitudes more, but they are all, without any single exception, spoken of as men and women who could hear the word, believe the word, receive it with gladness, and continue in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship. There is not the slightest intimation that they brought their children with them, or that there was a single crying baby in the whole vast company. But you say there may have been, though there is no record of it. I might say, so there may have been monkeys! The thing is not impossible in the abstract. But where is the proof? Is it in the fact that Peter said, ‘The promise is to you and to your children?’ But that was not a promise of Church membership, but only that God would ‘pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,’ etc. What has this to do with babies? Is it in the fact that children were circumcised under the law of Moses? But this Church was neither a continuation nor a modification of the Mosaic dispensation. It was a new institution. It belonged to the new kingdom which the prophets had foretold, and which Christ came to establish. ‘The law and the prophets were until John.’ Then they were superseded by the coming of the Lord. He made the laws for his own kingdom. If infants were members of the Jewish economy, it was because God had so ordained and expressly declared through Abraham and through Moses; and if Jesus declared as plainly or at all that they must be members of his new institution, you can show us the record in the New Testament, which is the law of his kingdom, as the Old was of the other.”

“I am aware, gentlemen, that the inferences I drew do not make it certain that there were infants in the Church as it was constituted at Jerusalem, but they at least make it exceedingly probable; and if we can find that they were admitted at any time or in any place by any of the apostles, it will be all the same in regard to our argument as though we could show them in the Church at Jerusalem.”

“That is quite true, sir,” replied Mr. Courtney. “Find them where you can, and we will yield the point.”

“I was about to call your attention to the 16th of Acts, in which we have two instances of the reception by Paul and Silas of the whole household of a believer; and you know these are but two of several others of a similar kind, as that of Cornelius, of Stephanas, etc.”

“Did any of these households consist of unbelievers, or of little infants?”

“It is most likely that they did: most families have such.”

“But is there any proof that there were actually any in these families? Are any of them said to be unbelievers or infants? On the contrary, is it not said of the household of Stephanas, that they ‘devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints?’ Is it not expressly said of the family of Cornelius, that the ‘Holy Spirit fell upon them, and that they spake with tongues, and magnified God?’ (Acts x. 44⁠–⁠46.) Were not Lydia’s household ‘the brethren’ (spoken of in the 40th verse of the chapter) whom Paul and Silas comforted, after they left the prison and returned to her dwelling? And did not Paul ‘speak the word to all’ the household of the jailer, and did not ‘all his house’ unite with him in believing? Ver. 34. There is, if I read rightly, just as much evidence that they ‘believed,’ as there is that they were ‘baptized.’”

“But there are,” said the Methodist, “at least two places in which children are recognized as Church members, and those are Col. iii. 20, 21, where Paul says, ‘Children, obey your parents in all things,’ and Ephesians vi. 1, ‘Children, obey your parents in the Lord.’ If they were not Church members, how could they be exhorted to obey in the Lord? And, in fact, if they were not in the Church, how could Paul address them at all, as his epistles were written to the Churches?”

“My dear sir,” replied Mr. Courtney, “do you suppose one ceases to be his father’s child when he is old enough to believe the gospel? The child among the Greeks did not legally become a man until he was twenty-five, just as he does not legally become a man with us until he is twenty-one. Till then he was, in the language of that age, called a child— sometimes a little child, though old enough to have been counted a man with us. But, not to quibble about words, one thing is certain: these Ephesian and Colossian children could not have been babes, otherwise it was folly to address them. They must have been old enough to understand the epistle, otherwise it could with no propriety appeal to them. And if old enough for this, they were old enough to understand the gospel and believe in Christ. Hence the apostle, in the beginning of the letter, addresses the Colossians as ‘saints and faithful brethren in Christ,’ (Col. i. 2,) and the letter to the Ephesians is addressed to ‘saints’ who were ‘faithful in Jesus Christ.’ (Eph. i. 1.) Moreover, they were people who ‘trusted in Christ,’ and ‘who loved the saints,’ (i. 13⁠–⁠15.) They had been dead, but brought to life by the gospel, (ii. I.) They ‘had been in darkness, but were now light in the Lord,’ v. 8.”

“But is there nothing,” asked the Doctor, “in the history of any of the other Churches at variance with the remarkable facts at Jerusalem? Were all who at any time united with any one of the Churches as evidently believers as those were in the first Church?”

“You shall judge for yourself, sir. The next Church of which we have any account is that at Samaria, and of that we read, (Acts viii. 12,) ‘They believed Philip, and were baptized, both men and women.’ If there were also children, Luke was a false historian, or he must have mentioned them. The members of the Church at Rome are spoken of as believers, and such believers that their ‘faith was spoken of throughout the world.’ (Rom. i. 7, 8.) To the Corinthians Paul wrote, ‘Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours.’ (1 Cor. i. 2.)

“The Church of the Thessalonians, Paul says, ‘received the word in much affliction, with joy in the Holy Ghost.’ (1 Thess. i. 6.) And nowhere, in any place, is there any intimation given that any Church consisted, or could consist, of any but professed believers. In fact, the admission of any others must be for ever precluded by the very objects for which the Church was constituted. It was to be, as we have seen, the judiciary and executive in Christ’s kingdom. It is the Church that is to receive members. (Rom. xiv. 1.) The Church is to cast out the wicked. (1 Cor. v. 4, 5.) The Church is to restore the penitent. (2 Cor. ii. 7, 8.) The Church is to set apart ministers. (Acts i. 23; vi. 5.) The Church is to send out missionaries. (Acts xiii. 3.) The ordinances of the kingdom are in the keeping of the Church; and in the Church, when it has come together, the Lord’s Supper is to be observed, as a perpetual memento of his love, until Christ comes again. (1 Cor. xi. 20, 33.) Now, such duties as these cannot be performed by little children, and will not be properly performed by the unconverted. To suppose that Christ gave such duties in charge to children and the unconverted, in short, to any but believers, is to suppose him guilty of such folly as we would expect to find in none but an idiot or a madman.”

“But you forget,” replied the Methodist, “that the Church did not consist entirely of such, and in our communion they have none of the privileges of membership until they have professed a desire for conversion, and have joined the class and gone through their six months’ probation.”

“Though the Church has always admitted little children by baptism,” added the Bishop, with dignity, “yet the rite of confirmation his ever been regarded as indispensable to their recognition as complete Church members.”

“I know very well,” said Mr. Courtney, “that you have both of you these unscriptural and anti-scriptural appendages what you call the Church. I do not wish to discuss them now. We will come to them in regular order by and by. We have seen in the Scriptures that Christ set up a kingdom on the earth, as had been foretold by the prophets. In that kingdom he alone is king. He made the laws: he appointed the ordinances. The visible administration of these laws and ordinances he vested in ‘the Church,’ which, we have also seen, consisted of the believers in any place who were gathered into an official assembly to transact this business in his name. You say that this Church consisted of ‘believers and their children,’ or of believers and all children who can be procured to be baptized. The only proof you offer that has even the semblance of testimony is, that several families were baptized by the apostles. Now I say, first, there is no proof in the record that there was a single child, or an unbeliever, in any one of these families. You can find whole families of adults, and of believers, in every neighborhood, and such these might have been, for aught that is in the record. Then, I say, in the next place, that the record actually shows that they were all believers, since they are called brethren, and are said to believe, rejoice, speak with tongues, glorify God, and give themselves to the work of the ministry.

“This is enough, surely, to set aside your proof; but now I go still further, and say that to have received the unconverted, whether children or adults, would have utterly subverted the very objects for which the Church was instituted, and consequently it would have been no less than madness to admit them. I know we differ here, because we differ in regard to what the objects are for the accomplishment of which the Church was constituted. You Episcopalians look upon it as the instrumentality of salvation. You baptize the children and receive them into the Church to save their souls. You pretend thus to regenerate and make them members of Christ. The Scriptures teach, however, that they must be first made members of Christ, (by faith,) and then made members of the Church of Christ. They do not come into the Church for salvation, but they are entitled to its privileges and required to assist in the transaction of its business, because they are already of the saved. They must belong to Christ before they can be qualified to act for Christ. He does not set men and women (or little babies either) to administer the laws and ordinances of his kingdom until they have first become the willing subjects of the King. And if the Church be, as we have seen that it is, the authorized executive of his kingdom, it follows, of course, that none who are not professed believers upon him can be admitted to its membership. To admit them would be to place the management of the affairs of his kingdom in the hands of his enemies.”

“But, my dear sir,” exclaimed the Methodist, “we do not intrust the management of the business of the Church to the hands of the baptized children of the Church.”

“That is very true, sir. You do not intrust it to the children nor to the adults. You do not intrust it to the Church, at all. You preachers have usurped the whole authority, and vested it in yourselves. The Church has nothing to do but to reverently obey you, as you have sworn reverently to obey your bishop, or chief minister. And you, sir,” addressing the Episcopalian bishop, “have also taken upon yourself to lord it over God’s heritage. But we will come to speak of these things hereafter. What I wish to say now is simply this: you both baptize little children to make them members of the Church. When you have done so, I suppose you will not deny that they are members; and if they are members, how dare you exclude them from any right or any privilege that Christ conferred upon Church members? Does the Word anywhere authorize you to exclude Church members (except for open sin) from the table of the Lord, until they become ‘seekers,’ or until they have learned a few questions and answers in the catechism, and have had the bishop’s hands put on their heads? Does the word anywhere authorize you to drive any Church member (except for open sin) out of a business meeting of the Church, or to deprive him of equal privileges there with any other member? If it does, you can show me the text. If it does not, your baby members are entitled to equal privileges with any other members.”

“Not at all, sir,” replied the bishop. “They would be excluded from an equal participation in the privileges and duties of Church members, from their very incapacity properly to enjoy or perform them; and, consequently, no express scriptural injunction was required.”

“But if that be so,” replied Mr. Courtney, “it is surely an act of most consummate folly on your part to make Church members of them. If they can neither enjoy the privileges nor perform the duties of Church members, what business have they in the Church? Why make them members till they are qualified to act the part of members?”

“It is useless, sir,” said the bishop, very solemnly, “for us to dispute upon this point, until we have agreed upon another; and that is, whether Christ did not institute the ordinances of his house as a means of salvation?”

“O, well, if you baptize the baby to save its soul, that is another matter; and if you make it a Church member to give it the benefits of Church forms, it can perhaps receive them. But I have not been able to find in the book any authority for conferring these or any other Church privileges upon any but the penitent and the believing. The Christian dispensation was introduced by John; and John received and baptized none who had not professed their penitence and faith.

“Christ was himself the next preacher in this dispensation; and he, like John, proclaimed that men should first repent—should first believe, and then should be baptized.

“Peter was the first to preach the gospel, after Jesus had gone up; and he said, like his Master, ‘Repent and be baptized.’ And they were not baptized till they had ‘gladly received the word.’

“When Philip preached Christ to the Samaritans, they first believed, and then they were baptized.

“When the eunuch asked for baptism, he was informed that it could be given only on condition of his faith.

“Paul was not baptized until he was a penitent believer.

“The household of Cornelius were not baptized until the Holy Ghost had fallen on them, thus giving evidence that they belonged to Christ.