SECOND DAY’S TRAVEL
In which little more is done than to settle the exact meaning of the words and phrases used in the Scriptures to designate the new institution which was established by Christ, and which people commonly call his Church, but which the Scriptures call his kingdom.
IF the reader has never seen the work to which this is the sequel,[2] he will do well to lay this down until he can obtain and read Theodosia Ernest, for there is much in this which no one can fully understand without some acquaintance with the history which that book records. If he has seen and read that work, he will probably feel some faint desire at least to know in what way good Doctor Thinkwell had ever been associated with Theodosia, and by what means he knew any thing of herself or her husband; and will excuse the curiosity, which led to much conversation and many conjectures between herself and Mr. Percy, as to who this stranger could possibly be, and what could have been the nature of that favor for which he acknowledged his indebtedness to her. I do not say that it was owing entirely to this that she passed a sleepless night, for there was the heavy tread of passers to and fro upon the deck; the creaking of the tiller-ropes and rudder; the frequent ringing of the pilot’s bells, as signals to the engineers; the occasional tolling of the great bell, as a signal to other boats; the constant rattling and jarring of the ponderous machinery; and the splash of the mighty wheels by which they were driven along the surface of the stream: all these combined to hold her waking; and, being awake, she could not help awakening her husband every hour, to tell him of some new conceit concerning the mysterious Doctor; and I trust the reader will excuse her, if she left her state room more anxious to solve this riddle than to study the peculiar characteristics of a Christian Church.
Scarcely were the breakfast things removed, before she desired Mr. Percy to secure an opportunity to renew their conversation. He went out to look for the Doctor, and reported that he was smoking his cigar upon the upper deck. As the night had been sultry and the morning was calm, Mrs. Percy soon persuaded two or three ladies, with whom she had established a travelling acquaintance, that it would be delightful to enjoy the fresh air above. It was not long before Mr. Percy was walking the deck with two young ladies, and his wife was walking with Dr. Thinkwell, deeply engaged in earnest conversation.
“I must say, Dr. Thinkwell, it was too provoking in you to excite my curiosity as you did, and leave it all night unsatisfied. Mr. Percy and I could not sleep for anxiety to learn in what way you became acquainted with a portion of our history, and how it was possible that either of us could ever unconsciously have done you so great a kindness as you intimated yesterday Now please explain yourself.”
“With the greatest pleasure, Madam; but only on the condition that you repay my story by your own; for I suppose I am almost as curious to learn your history, from the time I saw you last, as you are to hear mine.”
“Let it be so understood, then. I am ready to promise almost any thing reasonable; only tell me how you came to know us, and what the favor was of which you spoke, and which you were pleased to call the greatest blessing of your life.”
“It was, in part, through your instrumentality, Madam, that I was recovered from the distractions of infidelity to the peace of faith. But not to keep you longer in suspense, I will tell you how it was. I have an estate in the country, a few miles from your native town, on which I was spending a few months during the summer that you were baptized. One Sabbath morning, as I was riding into town, I noticed a crowd gathering about the old school-house on the common, and, moved only by an idle curiosity, I went up and joined it. I soon discovered that it was a religious meeting, but knew that it must be something uncommon, and therefore dismounted and went in.
“It had been many years since I had been present at any religious services; and it was the first time I was ever present at a Baptist meeting. The whole scene interested me greatly, from its mere novelty. When the sermon was finished, and you presented yourself so calmly, and related your Christian experience, I will not distress you by saying how much I pitied your enthusiasm, and wondered at your folly. I was, however, greatly interested. I followed you to the river: I felt an involuntary shudder when you were plunged into the water: I gazed upon your face as you came out; and, strange as it may seem to you, I wept with those who wept that day. I was ashamed of it; I saw no reason for it; I chided myself, and called myself a fool for weeping; but I could not restrain my tears.
“I forgot the business for which I had come to town, and returned home sad and thoughtful. I began to ask myself, What if this be not all an illusion? what if religion be, after all, a stern reality? what if there be a God? what if the Bible should be true? what if there be a heaven and a hell? Was it not at least possible that I might be wrong, and the thousands whom I had pitied or despised as dupes, or as impostors, might be right? True, I had often looked over the argument, and found it all correct; but was it not possible that, at some point, my logic had been at fault? Could it do any harm to go over the ground once more? I determined to do so, carefully, step by step; but, in the meantime, I was uneasy; I was distressed; I could think of nothing else. Day after day, and night after night, I returned to the meetings, which you remember were held, first in the school-house, and afterwards in the courthouse. I witnessed all the professions of faith, and all the seventy baptisms; and, though not yet convinced that the Bible was more than a mass of fable and imposture, I spent many hours in its careful study.
“At length it became necessary for me to leave that part of the country. I had but few personal acquaintances, and to none of these did I mention my distress, which continued and increased until it had sensibly undermined my health. I felt that, one way or another, the question must be decided; and, slowly and painfully, step by step, my reason struggled back from the dark abyss of atheism, to a firm belief in a glorious, spiritual, intelligent, and efficient First Cause, which men call God; and then, more slowly and laboriously still, to the recognition of the Bible as a revelation from that God to me.
“I will not now even allude to the nature of that process of reasoning by which this work was done. Some time or other we will, should Providence permit, go over all that ground.[3] What sleepless nights and days of anguish wore away, through the long and dreary months, while this re-investigation was in progress, I almost shudder to remember. And when this work was done—when had I found that there was a God, and that the Scriptures were his message to our race—there came a time of still greater darkness, and more oppressive agony of soul. Reason could show me that there was a God; but reason could not tell me what that God requires of him who has broken his laws, and rebelled against his government. This I felt that I had done. I was a sinner. The God of the Bible was a God I had not loved or honored. My very heart revolted against his right to rule me. Yet I tried to conform my life, and even my desires, to the requirements of his Word. The trial was a vain one: I offended every day, and every day was more and more oppressed with a sense of guilt. I needed pardon for the past, and I needed aid in the present. I cannot say that I had any considerable fear of punishment. I did not think of this; but I was a sinner, and needed deliverance. I prayed—O! how intense, how earnest, how agonizing was my prayer!—‘Lord, save me; I cannot save myself!’ Like David, I cried, ‘I am distressed: O Lord, undertake for me!’ and, little by little, the light of his love shone into my soul. I began to study more and more the character of Jesus as a Saviour. This removed the cloud from much of what had seemed mysterious in the sacred record. ‘He was exalted to be a Saviour:’ he was ‘Christ the Lord, a Saviour:’ ‘he came to save his people from their sins.’ He could save me: why should he not? ‘Whosoever will, let him come;’ and ‘come’ especially he says to the ‘weary and heavy laden.’ And, ‘he that cometh, I will in no wise cast out.’ I took him at his word: I asked him to save me; I believe he will—he has—he does; and I delight to meet with one who loves him as I do, and tell what great things he has done for my soul.
“Now you have my history, and I shall expect you to tell me yours, beginning from the time of your baptism; and so much of Mr. Percy’s (if he will not tell it himself) as will explain the mystery of his appearing as a clergyman rather than a lawyer.”
“I will keep my promise, Doctor; but you know that when a lady gets to talking, especially about herself, she never knows when to leave off. And my husband told Mr. Courtney that we would all assemble in the cabin about this time, to renew our investigation of the nature and characteristics of a Church of Christ; and, till I have learned why it is that you could not recognize the body of Christians into whose number you saw me baptized as one, I shall feel as though your history is not quite complete. So let us go down. I hope that Methodist minister will be there, for I am anxious for a full examination of the whole question.”
“You cannot be as much so as I am. And with the understanding that you will remember your promise at the first convenient time, we will now go below.”
On entering the cabin, they found Mr. Courtney already there, with the Bible open before him, in which he had placed a number of little slips of paper, with a pencil-mark on each, to designate some particular passage which he desired to refer to.
The party were soon seated in order around the table. Some of the other passengers drew near enough to hear, without seeming to take part in the discussion; while others, aware that it would be upon a subject connected with religion, quietly drew farther off, that they might not be annoyed with any thing so distasteful and unfashionable.
“You understand, I presume,” said the Doctor to Mr. Courtney, “that the object which we have in view is simply to ascertain which (if any) of those organizations which now claim to be Churches of Jesus Christ, is that which was established by =him=; and which is recognized in the Scriptures as =his Church=? Or, to be more specific and practical, is it the Roman Catholic, the Greek Church, the Episcopal, the Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Lutheran, the Congregationalist the Baptist, the Cumberland Presbyterian; or is it all of these or none of these?”
“Certainly, sir. Mr. Percy explained your object to me soon after I came on board yesterday evening; and I have been considering a little how we could reach it by the most direct and plainest route. It seems to me that it will be important, if not essential, for us first to determine definitely what we mean by The Church of Christ. Let us be sure we know what we are looking for, and then we shall be able to recognize it when we find it. I suppose we may take it for granted that the Lord Jesus Christ has, somewhere in this world, a visible organization of his people, called his Church. The very fact that we are looking for it, is evidence that we admit its existence. We need not, therefore, refer to the Scriptures to prove that they speak of it as a perpetual institution, which must continue till the end of time; that is, till Christ shall come again. If proof were needed, however, we have it in the act of institution of one of the ordinances of that organization, in which Christ says, ‘As often as ye do it, ye do show forth the Lord’s death until he come.’ And again, in the commission to establish and extend that organization among all nations, ‘Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.’”
“Of course, Mr. Courtney, no professed Christians doubt that such an organization as the Church of Christ exists, since they all claim that they are members of it.”
“Then we may take another step. It is essential to our purpose to know what the Scriptures say about this organization; and, for this end, we must know by what names they call it, otherwise we might not be able to tell when they are speaking of it.”
“That is well thought of,” said the Doctor, “and may save us a great deal of trouble. Much of the controversy which distracts the religions world, I am persuaded, has grown out of a loose and careless manner of employing words and phrases. Let us be sure to get started right, and then the whole journey will be easy, and pleasant, and safe; and we will be much more likely to arrive at right conclusions.”
“The Church of Christ is, in common language,” resumed Mr. Courtney, “continually confounded with the kingdom of Christ. Yet it is in fact, and according to Scripture usage a very different thing. It is not the kingdom, but an institution within the kingdom; just as our courts of law are not the State, but a requisite and essential part of the machinery of the State. Let us first get some definite idea of The Kingdom.
“One of the best expositions of this subject which I have seen, is given by Dr. George Campbell, a Scotch Presbyterian, and one of the most candid and erudite writers of the present age. He says, (page 132,) ‘The religious institution of which the Lord Jesus is the author, is distinguished in the New Testament by particular names and phrases, with the true import of which it is of very great consequence that we be acquainted, in order to form a distinct apprehension of it, and the nature of the whole.… The most common appellation given to this institution, or religious dispensation, in the New Testament, is “the kingdom of God,” or “the kingdom of heaven;” and the title given to the manifestation of this new state is most frequently “the gospel of the kingdom,” and, when considered under a somewhat different aspect, “the new covenant.”
“‘The Great Personage himself, to whose administration the whole is intrusted, is, in contradistinction from all others, denominated “The Christ.” … In the phrase, the kingdom of God, or of heaven, there is manifest allusion to the predictions in which this economy was revealed by the prophets in the Old Testament, particularly by the Prophet Daniel, who mentions it in one place as the kingdom which the God of heaven would set up, and which should never be destroyed; in another, as a kingdom to be given with glory and dominion over all people, nations, and languages, to one like unto the Son of Man.’
“This opinion of the Scotch divine is substantially the same as that given by Mr. Robinson in his Lexicon of the Greek Testament, where he says, ‘These phrases’ [the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, and the kingdom of Christ] ‘are synonymous, and signify the Divine spiritual kingdom, the glorious reign of the Messias. The idea of this kingdom has its basis in the prophecies of the Old Testament where the coming of Messias and his triumphs are foretold.’
“It is certain the prophets had foretold Messias as a king: it is certain that Jesus claimed to be that King. ‘Thou sayest it’—I am a king. ‘For this end I came into the world.’ When John, who came to prepare a people, made ready for this new Sovereign, and preached, ‘Repent, for the reign of Heaven has come near,’ (this is a literal translation of Matthew iii. 2, rendered in our version, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,’) he doubtless referred to those prophecies, and the people must have so understood him. So when Jesus preached, Matthew iv. 17, saying the same thing; and so when the twelve apostles were sent out to proclaim every where in Israel the same notable words. All who heard then would understand them to mean that the Christ, the Messias of prophecy, had come and had set up, or was about to set up, his long-predicted kingdom.
“After John’s ministry had ceased, and he was confined in prison, Jesus proclaimed, (Mark i. 15,) ‘The time is fulfilled—the kingdom of God is at hand,’ or, literally, ‘the kingdom has come,’ for the Greek word (Engiken) is in the perfect and not the present tense. The time is fulfilled. What time? The answer is plain: that designated by the prophets. The time when the new kingdom should be set up, which should ultimately fill the earth; and which should be given to one like unto the Son of Man.
“The old dispensation, with its rites and ceremonies, and complicated types and deep-meaning symbols, was now superseded. The law and the prophets were until John, said the Saviour, but since that time the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and every man presseth into it. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. And to the proud, self-righteous Pharisees and skeptical Sadducees, he said, The publicans and harlot enter into the kingdom of God before you. This could not be if the kingdom had not already come.
“That the Jews were actually expecting this kingdom, is evident from the song of Zacharias; from the happy exclamation of good old Simeon; and from the confidence with which Anna, the aged prophetess, spake of the child Jesus to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem. Luke i. 67, ii. 25, 36. So also we read that Joseph of Arimathea, a good man and just, and one of the Sanhedrim; was of those who waited for the kingdom of God; and the two disciples that walked towards Emmaus, talking so sadly of his death, declared that they had trusted that it was he who should have redeemed Israel.
“May we not then consider thus much as settled: 1st. That the prophets, and especially Daniel, had foretold the setting up of the Christian institution as the kingdom of God. 2d. That the Jews were looking for and expecting it when Jesus came. And 3d. That John first, and Jesus afterwards, declared that the organization which Christ was about to establish, and did establish, was this kingdom?”
“I do not see why you need to have taken so much trouble to prove this,” replied the Doctor, “as I cannot suppose any one ever doubted it. It is no more than this, after all, to wit: that the kingdom of Christ was that organization which Christ established; and this was a self-evident proposition which needed no proof.”
“I trust, then, you will remember this; and if you find yourself or anybody else trying to show that something or other which was in existence before the time of John and Christ, or something that originated a thousand years after that time, is this Christian kingdom, you will rebuke them for their folly. We have here the first criterion of the Christian institution: that is, that it was organized and had its beginning in the time or about the time that Christ was on the earth. It was not in being before, for the prophets foretold that it should be established then. And John and Jesus said that then the time was fulfilled. Then it was preached. Then men pressed into it. Then its laws were made. Then its ordinances were established. Then the character of its members, the mode of Initiation, the method of discipline, and whatever else was needful to its organization and perpetuity, were ordained by the Great Personage to whom its administration was intrusted.
“If you will now turn to the prophecy in Daniel xi. 44, you will see that this kingdom, thus established, was to be a perpetual kingdom, and that it was at length to destroy all other kingdoms, and to fill the whole earth. Yet it was not to be set up, like other kingdoms, by the instrumentality of men. The stone that became a great mountain and filed the whole earth, was cut out without hands—it was God’s work. So Christ said, his kingdom was not of this world; his servants did not fight. It had no human sovereign—it owned no human laws. God set up the kingdom, and Christ, the ever-living, was to be its King for ever. For the prophet mentions, as two characteristics of this kingdom, that ‘it should never be destroyed,’ and ‘the dominion should not be left to other people.’ Christ, in his kingdom, reigns alone and reigns for ever. He will not give his honor to another, and if we find any kingdom called by his name, which he did not establish, and which is ruled by other Lords or other laws than his, we may be sure that it is falsely named; for, in Christ’s kingdom, Christ alone is king. You see, therefore, that we have already at least two signs or marks by which to recognize this Kingdom when we find it; namely: It begun with Christ and was established by him, and in it he is not only the supreme, but only Lord and King. Its subjects on members are such, and only such, as =he= has designated: its laws are such, and only such, as =he= has enacted. Its officers are such, and only such, as =he= appointed. Its ordinances are such, and only such, as =he= has instituted. And, unless the Scriptures are unintelligible on the very subject which, of all others, we would expect them to make plain, we can have no serious difficulty in finding out what the constitution of his kingdom was. Let us take the New Testament, therefore, and examine for ourselves.
“And first, let us examine such passages as designate the nature of this kingdom. Christ says, (John xviii. 36,) when Pilate was questioning him concerning the accusation which the Jews had made against him, ‘My kingdom is not of this world.’ It was in the world, but not of the world. He had no earthly throne. He wore no jewelled crown. He held no regal sceptre. He claimed no worldly power. No marshalled armies fought at his command; nor was he in any respect a worldly king. And yet he was a king; for this end he was born, and for this very object he came into the world. And not to leave the governor entirely in the dark, he adds, the subjects of his kingdom are those that believe and obey the truth. ‘Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.’
“Again, he said to the Pharisees, (Luke xvii. 20,) when they demanded to know of him when the kingdom of God would come, ‘The kingdom of God cometh not with observation.’ There is nothing about it to excite the attention and admiration of the uninitiated beholder. No one will exclaim, look there, or see here. But the kingdom of God is within you. It is an interior soul kingdom; and its reign is not one of outward pomp and power, but one of inward love and heart-yielding obedience. There was about it nothing to attract the gaze of the wondering word; but yet it was, a visible kingdom. Jesus said there were some standing there who should not die till they had seen it come with power. And this they did upon the day of Pentecost, and during the few days which followed, when over eight thousand were added to its ranks.
“The subjects of this kingdom were visible subjects, men and women who could repent, believe and be baptized.
“The ordinances of the kingdom were visible ordinances, symbolizing to the eye as well as the heart the believers death to sin, and the Saviour’s death for him.
“The laws of the kingdom were visible laws, recorded, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, for the instruction and control of its subjects.
“The Executive of the kingdom, to which was intrusted the enforcement of those laws, was a visible organization, with a fixed and settled constitution, having the extent of its powers, and the manner and occasions of their exercise, clearly pointed out and carefully defined.”
“O yes, Mr. Courtney!” exclaimed the Doctor, rather impatiently; “I grant all that. I suppose no one has ever denied that this kingdom was set up by Christ, and that it is a visible kingdom. But what I want to know is this: Who were the subjects of it? of what sort of people did it consist? and how did they become incorporated into it?”
“Your question is a double one, and must have a double answer. What sort of people were admitted to membership in this kingdom? Ask John. He came to prepare the people made ready for the organization of the kingdom. He rejected the self-righteous Pharisees and unbelieving Sadducees, and all who claimed admittance for their parentage; and received only the personally penitent, who believed on him who should come after him. Ask Jesus. He says, ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God.’ So it seems they are the lowly-winded and humble-hearted. ‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.’ So they are such as are ready to suffer for the cause of Christ. Moreover, they must be obedient to Christ, for he says, ‘Whosoever shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’ But this obedience must not be one of mere form. It must not be a mere observance of rites, and ordinances, and ceremonies; for he says, ‘Except your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of God.’
“And these requisitions of humility and obedience are further insisted on in several other passages besides those parallel with these.
“When the disciples asked him who should be the greatest in the kingdom, he took a little child and set before them, and assured them that except one were converted, and made like such a child, he could not enter the kingdom at all, and that he in it who humbled himself the most, should be the greatest. So also he taught that mere profession was no passport to admittance, but only actual obedience. ‘Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.’
“External morality should afford no claim, for he assured the Pharisees and Sadducees that the publicans and harlots, who repented at the preaching of John, were going into the kingdom of God before them, and that they not only would not go in themselves, but hindered others from entering.
“A faint resolution and temporary reformation were not sufficient qualifications; for he says, ‘No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking Lack, is fit for the kingdom of God.’
“The subjects of this kingdom, we learn from Matt. vi. 33, are willing or voluntary subjects. They come into it, not by compulsion—not by the act of their parents, or guardians, or sponsors, but of their own accord, and they are not only willing, but desirous to enter it. ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness.’ This language could only be addressed to voluntary agents. And Matthew (ix. 12) seems to convey the idea that they were not only desirous, but exceedingly anxious to enter. ‘The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent (that is, the earnest, energetic) take it by force.’ It is not enough to seek to enter in, but they must strive, must struggle, must agonize to enter in; ‘for many shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able.’
“But the decisive and all-including passage is John iii. 3, 5, in which the King is explaining to Nicodemus the nature of membership in his kingdom. ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’
“These are the principal, if not the only passages, in which the qualifications for membership in the kingdom are expressly described in connection with the phrases, ‘kingdom of God,’ or ‘kingdom of heaven.’ And this much, at least, is certain: none are, or can be, REAL members of this dominion, except they have been converted, have become humble, penitent, believing, and obedient to Christ, and have sought for citizenship with earnest, heartfelt desire. Christ’s kingdom is not one of mere outward forms. He reigns in the hearts of his people. His subjects obey him because they love him, and no individual who does not sincerely and heartily LOVE him; who does not humbly, and yet confidently TRUST in him; and who does not truly, and resolutely, and perseveringly endeavor all things to OBEY him, is a fit subject for his kingdom. He must, in his heart, recognize Christ as his Lord and King, and seek to do his will, before Christ can own him for a subject, and treat him as a son.”
“I think that I now begin to understand you,” said the Doctor. “You regard all those who love Christ as equally the subjects of this visible kingdom.”
“Not at all, sir. You mistake me altogether. I have been trying to answer your first question, which related to the kind of people who compose the kingdom. I have not yet approached the second, which asked how they became incorporated into it. The penitent, the believing, the humble, the loving, and obedient, are fit subjects, and the only fit subjects for the kingdom. They are members of Christ’s _in_visible kingdom. Christ reigns in their hearts: Christ rules in their lives. They are his by redemption, and will reign with him in glory. But something more is needful, to make them members of his visible kingdom, which is that for which we now are looking. They are such as he has recognized as having a right to membership, but they are not yet members of it. Abel and Abraham, David and Daniel, Job and Joshua, and all the mighty host of the ancient saints, possessed this character. They were the children of God. They trusted him and loved him. They were the obedient upon the earth, and now rejoice with him in heaven. But they were not the subjects of that kingdom which Jesus Christ set up in the days of Pontius Pilate, for it was not yet in being. It had not been established. They foresaw it: they foretold it: they rejoiced that it was coming, but they could not be members of it till it came. If they had lived in the days of its existence, they would have possessed all the qualifications for membership, and would, doubtless, have become members. But something more than their piety of heart would have been needful to make them members.
“Christ, as King, has appointed a visible door of entrance into his visible kingdom. Those who would be subjects of it must first ‘be made such in their hearts;’ and then, when they have been thus ‘duly and truly prepared,’ they may be and must be initiated by the ceremony which HE has appointed. They have ceased to love the world in their hearts, and now they must openly come out from the world, and acknowledge subjection to him in that form and manner which HE has prescribed. Until they have done this, they may be his subjects in fact, but they are not his in proper from. They may be his in heart, but they do not belong to his organized and visible kingdom.”
“I think,” said Mrs. Percy, “I can illustrate what you mean:
“A king has set up his throne in the midst of a rebellious population, who have refused to obey him, and say, in heart and practice both, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’
“He surrounds himself with a few faithful subjects. He gives them a code of laws; and, among others, presents a certain form which shall be used in the case of every rebel who shall change his mind and join their ranks.
“This code of laws is made public both in the kingdom and out of it; so that all of both parties may know what is required of him who comes into the ranks of the faithful.
“Now, when any of the rebels has grown weary of rebellion, and laid down his arms, and has determined in his heart to serve the King, he may be called a subject. He is no longer a rebel. He has in heart become obedient to the King. He recognizes his authority. He intends and tries to do his will; but he is not legally and visibly a subject till he has gone through the form of reception prescribed by the King. And if he were in fact obedient, and knew of the requirement, he would of himself seek at once for such a regular and legal admission; he would not continue to live among the rebels and be counted of their number. This was the first act of obedience: the test appointed by the King to try if he were in fact obedient. And so long as he neglected or refused to obey in this particular, so long he would not be counted among the faithful.”
“But what,” said Mr. Percy, “if some who professed to be the officers of the kingdom and expounders of the law, should assure him that some other test was that which was required; or that no test at all was needful in his case?”
“Then I would say that these wicked men falsely and wrongfully hindered him from entering in, and that if all the circumstances were known to the King, he would love him, and reward his good intentions as though they had been carried into effect. But yet he could not, without repudiating his own law, and abrogating the form of admission which he had himself enacted, consider him as an actual member of his kingdom.”
“I thank you, Mrs. Percy,” exclaimed the Doctor. “Your beautiful comparison has made the whole matter perfectly plain. Christ is the King. He set up his kingdom in the midst of rebels. He sends his messengers to tell them of his goodness, and strive to win their hearts; for his reign is one of love. When any one is convinced of wrong, and converted to the right, he is a fit subject FOR His kingdom; but he is yet only prospectively and not actually IN his kingdom. To enter it in person, as he has in heart, bodily and visibly, as he has in spirit and in purpose, he must take the oath of allegiance, by submitting to baptism, the initiatory rite proscribed by the King. Till this is done, he may be a friend to the King, but he lives among his enemies. He may be subject to the King in feeling, but he has not put on his livery and joined his ranks. And fearful must be the responsibility of those who venture, in the face of CHRIST’S express command, to assure him that if the heart is right, the King requires no more; or to mislead him into the belief that he requires something else, instead of that which =he= commanded. But when one expounder of the law says one thing, and another something else, how is the new-born subject to know what to do?”
“He must examine the law for himself, sir,” replied Mr Courtney; “and he will not find it double-tongued. The King made his commandment very plain, and none misunderstood it until the wicked had perverted it. But let us not wander from the point before us. You see that if we will embrace all the fit subjects for the kingdom, all the humble, penitent, believing, and obedient, we must have an invisible kingdom, the limits of which are only known to Him who searches all hearts and knows all thoughts.
“I am very willing to recognize such a kingdom. It includes hundreds and thousands of most excellent and heavenly-minded children of God, who are not in the visible kingdom: some who, though converted, have never yet publicly professed their faith in any form. They may have had no opportunity; they may not have felt sufficient confidence in their love for the King; or, like yourself, Doctor, they may be yet in doubt about what the real visible kingdom is, and where it may be found, and how it must be entered. It includes thousands who have been imposed upon by their spiritual guides, and taught to believe that they are already in Christ’s kingdom, while they are in some other organization, as unlike it as possible, in every thing but name. They are good and pious children of God. They love the Saviour, and Christ reigns in their hearts on the earth, and they will reign with Christ in heaven. They are his, and he knows them to be his: they are in his invisible spiritual kingdom, but they are not in his visible kingdom; nor can they be until they have entered it by that visible and significant ordinance which the King appointed for this purpose. To illustrate what I mean, what writer has ever exhibited a deeper and more spiritual knowledge of the work of grace in the believer’s heart than Thomas à Kempis? What minister of Christ has ever shown more evidence of love to Christ, and love to souls, than Fénélon? What woman has ever done and suffered more for the cause of the Redeemer than did Madame Guyon? Yet none of these were in the visible kingdom of Christ, unless the Church of Rome is the kingdom of Christ, and not of Antichrist. And as there are many in the invisible kingdom who are not in the visible, so there are many in the visible who have no right there, and never will be recognized by the King. The rite of initiation confers no moral qualities; and without penitence and faith preceding, it is of no avail. Simon the sorcerer was baptized and regularly initiated into Christ’s visible kingdom, but he had neither part nor lot in the matter. He was as deeply steeped in the gall of bitterness, and as strongly bound with the chains of iniquity, after his baptism as he was before; while the poor thief who died upon the cross was not baptized and never initiated, and yet he entered the Paradise of God in company with his Redeemer.
“It was, sir,” addressing the Methodist, “precisely this error (confounding the visible with the invisible kingdom) that first led to the introduction of infant baptism. The Saviour said, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;’ meaning thereby (if he referred to water baptism) his visible kingdom on the earth, that about which we have been talking; but men understood it of the _in_visible kingdom, or kingdom of glory in heaven, and so determined that as baptism was the only door of entrance into heaven, it should be denied to none, not even to new-born babes.”
“Pardon me, Mr. Courtney,” said the Doctor, “but we are wandering from our subject. We were examining the nature of the visible kingdom of Christ as it was established by him when he was here, and is destined to continue till he shall come again. We have ascertained that it was to consist of humble-minded penitents, who were obedient to the laws of Christ, and trusted in him for their salvation; and that when thus qualified for it, they were to be introduced into it by the rite of baptism. And although some of different character might be initiated, they were but enemies and rebels still, though bearing the name of friends and subjects; and though some having this character had been prevented from initiation, so could not be counted as actual members, yet they were not thereby divested of their title to those spiritual and eternal blessings which are promised to those possessing the character of subjects. I think we may now conclude that we understand the nature of this kingdom in its relation to individuals. Considered as purely spiritual, or as the invisible kingdom, it includes all who in their hearts have taken Christ to be their King, and in their lives are yielding him (so far they know his requirements) a prompt and sincere obedience. Considered as his visible kingdom, as an organized institution, it includes those of this character who have come out from the world and separated themselves to him by an open profession of their allegiance, and have been regularly initiated by the rite of baptism, as the King ordained.
“But now I am as far as ever from the object which I had in view when I entered on this investigation. I want to know where and which this kingdom is, and how I can be incorporated into it. I trust I am a member of what we have called the invisible kingdom. I am a subject of the King at heart. He has in his mercy given me a desire to obey him; and he requires me to profess him before men, and visibly unite with his people. Can you tell me where they are, and how I am to get among them? There are at least a dozen different organizations, each claiming to consist of genuine believers, who have been baptized. I know them, for the most part, to be good and pious people, and am not yet entirely convinced that their sprinkling is not valid baptism. So far as we have yet advanced, therefore, they all have equal claims upon me; yet I know they cannot all be right, or else they would all agree. Christ’s kingdom cannot be divided against itself, for Christ himself declared that if it were so it must fall. ‘A house divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.’ I know, therefore, that all these separate and rival organizations, with their various forms of government, opposite systems of faith, and clashing interests, cannot be his kingdom; but you have yet shown me no sign by which to distinguish which of them all is really his.”
“Have a little patience, Doctor. We have not yet finished our survey of the kingdom. We have ascertained, indeed, that it consists of professed believers who have been baptized; and this clue, if you would follow it out, would lead you to the truth. But we will not abandon our main subject yet in order to follow it. It remains now to consider the kingdom in regard to its organization. You have ascertained its membership: now let us look at its government, or polity. This kingdom not only has members, or citizens, but it has a King, and a code of laws, and an executive body by which, in the King’s name and by his authority, they are administered. To this executive body, and to it alone, the King intrusts the visible administration of his government. Now if we find any organization claiming to be this kingdom, or a part of this kingdom, the members of which have not been baptized, you must set them aside on the ground already settled, viz. Christ’s visible kingdom consists not of believers merely but of baptized believers; and if we find any organization which has rejected Christ from being King (not formally, but actually) by acknowledging subjection to another ruler, or to other laws than his, we may at once reject its claims upon this ground. It cannot be the kingdom of Christ unless it is ruled by his laws, administered by his executive, and enforced by his authority.”
“That is self-evident, sir. But where and what is this executive of which you speak?”
“It is that organization called in the New Testament ‘the Church.’”
“I had thought, sir, that the Church and the kingdom were the same thing—merely different names for the same object.”
“Not at all, sir. The Church is a local organization, charged by the King with the execution of his laws. It is in the kingdom: it makes a part of the kingdom: it is subject to the laws of the kingdom; but it is not the kingdom, any more than the courts of law and the executive of any state are themselves the state.”
“My dear sir, you astonish me. Is not the term Church in the Scriptures continually and almost invariably used as synonymous with the kingdom? Does it not comprise all the visible body of professing Christians? I am sure such is the general impression. How else should we read of the Church universal, of the ancient Church, of the Church militant, and the Church triumphant?”
“You do not read thus in the Scriptures, sir. The Holy Catholic, or universal Church, is a figment of men. The Scriptures commonly employ the word to signify only a local assembly of Christian people, who meet together in one place to observe Christ’s ordinances, and to transact the business relating to his kingdom. In the few places where it has a more extended meaning, it is used metaphorically, by virtue of that very common and natural figure of speech in which the name of a part is applied to the whole. It is never used in Scripture to designate such an ecclesiastical establishment as that which you call the Church of England, the Church of Rome, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, and the like. But the elaboration of this point will require no little time, and I fear some of our company may even now be weary of this dry discussion. We have seen what Christ’s kingdom is, and let that suffice us for to-day. To-morrow we will try to get some definite conception of the nature of his Church.”
“I am content,” replied the Doctor; “for, to own the truth, these things are so new to me that I feel I need time to review the ground we have gone over, and make myself sure that we have not travelled out of the record. Let me take my Bible, and examine again all these passages which speak of this kingdom; and when we meet here in the morning, I may be ready to take the other step in this investigation. And Mr. Percy, with your consent I shall invite your good lady to take a walk with me on deck, and fulfil a promise which she made yesterday.”
“I surely will not object, sir, provided I can make an arrangement for myself as agreeable as that of yesterday.”
The company disappeared from the ladies’ cabin, and were soon talking of other matters.
The Doctor claimed of Theodosia that she should, according to her promise, relate her own and Mr. Percy’s history from the time of her baptism. She told him much, but she did not tell him all; and we feel that it is due to the reader of these pages that he should be made particularly acquainted with some facts to which she scarcely alluded; and moreover, there were some things which she told which are already known to him who has perused the first volume of this work. We think it best, therefore, to resume the narrative where we left off; and go on to tell it in our own way.
The reader will remember that Mr. Percy had been converted to Christ on his way home—had gone into the meeting at the Court-house, related his experience of grace, and been received as one proper to be baptized. Before he had been baptized, however, he was stricken down suddenly by the hand of disease. Long time the balance wavered between death and life. By his avowal of his faith, and application for baptism, Theodosia felt that the only barrier to their contemplated union had been removed—he was her own betrothed again. She longed to tell him how her heart had poured its very life out in that sad and almost fatal letter which she felt had caused his sickness.
Called to his bedside by his mother and his physician, (as we have seen in the other volume,) she became to him not only the angel of his dreams, but the ministering angel of his waking hours. When he was strong enough to talk, he told her how bitterly his heart had wept at the remembrance of his vain attempt to persuade her to deny her Lord for him—to refuse obedience to Christ’s plain and imperative command, in order that she might not grieve or offend him whom she loved more than all else but Christ. He told her how he had wished to recall that rashly-written letter; how he had hoped it would have no effect upon her conduct; how happy he was to find that she had done her duty, without regarding it; how much more firmly he could trust her now—how much more tenderly he loved her now—since he had realized that nothing could turn her from the path of right.
And did she tell him how that letter of his had rent and crushed her heart? Did she tell him how it had for the time almost dethroned her reason? Did she tell him with what agony she slowly and mournfully came to her decision to give up all—to give up even him—for Christ?
She only told him how she had reproached herself for writing an answer which had caused him so much suffering.
“What!” exclaimed he, “did you send an answer to my letter? I never saw it—I did not know that you had written one!”
This suggested a new thought. She knew from the doctor that he had seen it. She knew that it had driven him to the very door of death. The doctor had taken it from the hand that grasped it, even as he lay senseless upon his office-floor. She had it now in her possession. But Mr. Percy had no remembrance of it: the hand that struck him was so heavy that it stunned the brain; and he had never realized from what source the blow had come. She turned the conversation to another theme.
“You are rapidly getting your strength again. The doctor says that you are now out of danger. I must leave you, and return home.”
“Not to-day, I hope.”
“No; but if you continue to improve, I must to-morrow. There is no longer any necessity for my presence.”
“I see how it is,” he replied. “You came when they told you I was like to die; and now your delicacy suggests that you ought not to stay. Well! be it so; but let me tell you, dearest, that your coming saved my life. My mind, I know, has sometimes wandered; and I am conscious now of a strange fancy—I know not whence it came—that you had utterly disowned and cast me off. This fancy preyed upon my heart, and gnawed away my life. Sometimes, in my dreams—it may have been in my delirium—I saw your image hovering about the room, looking so tenderly and pitifully into my eyes that I began to doubt if it were not my Theodosia; and when I found that you were really here—that it was your kind hand that prepared my food—your hand that gave me drink—your voice that answered my feeblest call, and your presence that calmed my distracted mind, I at once grew strong—I had something to live for; and now I feel that I shall live to make you at least some return of love for all your care.”
“There, hush now, Mr. Percy; you are talking too long, and will bring back your fever. Try to compose yourself to sleep. Your mother will stay with you till I return;” and she stole away to pour out her heart in thanksgiving to that Redeemer who was giving back to her, one after another, all the treasures which she had given up, in her purpose that she might keep his commandment.
She returned to her mother’s; and it was not many days before the conversation was renewed in the little parlor of Mrs. Ernest’s cottage.
Several weeks had passed. Mr. Percy was well and strong again: he had returned to his office, and was earnestly engaged in closing up his business. He had determined to abandon his profession, and engage in the work to which he felt the Lord had called him; but of this he had as yet said nothing, except to his friend and confidant, Dr. Woodruff.
“What,” asked the Doctor, “will Theodosia say to this? You may abandon your business, in which you could soon realize a fortune, and devote yourself to a life of hardship and poverty; but have you a right to entail poverty upon her? Are you willing to see her lead the life of a poor pensioner on the reluctant alms of Baptist churches?”
“O no, my friend, nothing of that sort will be necessary The ministers of Christ are worthy of their hire. They earn their support. It is not alms, but wages they receive.”
“Yes, yes, you may well say they earn it. They earn vastly more than they get; but though they earn it, those who receive the benefit of their labors usually understand that they are under no obligation to pay for them; and that the preacher should be very thankful if they condescend to give him the means of a hare subsistence. Look at the facts, Mr. Percy. Here are some twenty Baptist churches in this county: is there any one of them that gives its pastor even a bare support? I know these people better than you do. They will pay their doctors, and pay their lawyers, and pay their mechanics and their merchants; but they seem to me to have deliberately made a calculation to ascertain just how little a preacher can barely subsist upon, and that little they promise to pay him, but feel that it is only a gift—a mere matter of alms—which he cannot legally collect; and therefore they forget it and neglect it, until he becomes disheartened, and removes to another church, to be deluded again by similar promises. Some of the members are always glad when this occurs; for from that moment they feel released from all obligation ever to pay what they had promised him.”
“Surely,” said Mr. Percy, “this must be an exaggeration. No Christian people could so disregard not merely the demands of common honesty, but also the express injunction of the Saviour, that ‘They who preach the gospel shall live of the gospel.’”
“I think so too,” replied his friend; “and for this very reason am disposed greatly to doubt whether these Baptists are Christian people. As you have not joined them yet, I hope you won’t get angry at my saying so.”
“If I had joined them, I should be very silly to be angry at the truth; but I can’t believe that this is truth.”
“Let me convince you, then. There is old Mr. Doe: I know his history. He entered the ministry after he had a family, and he gave up a profitable employment to do so. He has been the pastor of half the churches in the county. Everybody has confidence in him—everybody esteems him a good minister; but he was never eloquent, and now he is old, and in absolute want. He told me himself that three hundred dollars was the most that he had ever received in one year for preaching; and to get that he had to serve four churches, two of them over thirty miles from his residence. Several years he has realized less than half that sum; and never has he been able to provide for his family as well as a common mechanic, or even a day-laborer. Then there is the minister by whom Miss Ernest was immersed. He has talents which, at the bar or in the forum, would place him among the first men of the State. Few speakers can equal his persuasive eloquence. He is popular as a preacher, and beloved as a man. He is the pastor of a church which has in its membership several who could each pay him five hundred dollars a year, and never feel it; but they give him four hundred to preach to them twice a month, and he gets about a hundred and fifty more from two other churches. Before he entered the ministry, he had some property. He is a man of cultivated taste; and his family have been accustomed to genteel society, and feel that it is necessary to their happiness to have about them not merely the bare necessaries, but some of the comforts, not to say the luxuries of life. The consequence is, that he is every year drawing upon and rapidly exhausting his patrimony; and should he live ten years, is likely to be reduced to the same poverty with Mr. Doe; and these are but instances of what is common, almost universal.”
“It may be, my friend, that you are correct in regard to this. I know that the Baptists are a poor and obscure people, and I suppose they have not the ability to provide very bountifully for their ministers.”
“It is not their poverty, my dear sir, but their parsimony. You will find them rich enough, but too stingy—that is the word, sir—too stingy, too niggardly, too avaricious, too covetous, too selfish, to provide for anybody but themselves. They must have preaching, and they think they can’t do well without at least one sermon a month. So they contrive to get that much for the least possible sum—usually not over one cent a week for each church member; and then they call themselves generous, and think they have conferred a great favor on the preacher when they have doled out to him this pitiful sum.
“Now, Mr. Percy, if you are willing to live such a life yourself, and subject Miss Ernest to all the sufferings and sorrows of disappointed hope, degraded social position, and absolute penury, then marry her, give up your lucrative profession, and become a Baptist preacher.”
“You make the picture dark indeed,” said Mr. Percy; “but I trust there is some brighter view of it. I must talk with Mr. Courtney about this subject—not that I have any hesitation about what I must do, but that I may understand how it has come to pass that these disciples of Jesus are so disregardful of his laws. As for myself, I shall preach Christ’s gospel, whether I am fed or starved. I must preach. I feel that God has called me to this work; and woe is me if I draw back. I am not now prepared to preach; but after my baptism I intend to devote my time to such studies as will prepare me for it. And I do not feel that it can be any half-way devotion that I must give to the ministry of salvation. I will, God helping me, give it all my life, and all the energies of all my life. I can endure poverty, I can endure hardships, I can—”
“Just stop one moment,” interrupted his friend. “Can you give up Miss Ernest, or, what will to you seem worse, can you subject her to poverty, hardships, and contempt, when it is in your power to set her among the highest? Answer this question to yourself before you act.”
Mr. Percy’s countenance fell. He had not seen the matter in this light. He sat down by his table with a heavy heart, and began to calculate how much he was already worth, and how long it would take him to realize a sum which would secure the future Mrs. Percy a respectable income, independent of what he might receive for his preaching.
The conclusion did not seem quite satisfactory, for he sighed deeply as he looked up from the figures, and then slowly and abstractedly walked over to Mrs. Ernest’s cottage.
Theodosia read in his face as he came in that there was something heavy on his heart, and was not slow to find a way to induce him to tell her what it was.
“You know. Theo., that I am to be baptized to-morrow and that the coming Thursday is our anticipated wedding-day.”
“Certainly; and though that might make a sensible man look serious, I don’t see why it should make you sad.”
“When you agreed to be my wife, I was a lawyer. I had a lucrative business, which promised yearly still increasing returns. I did not solicit your hand until I felt that I should have it in my power to place you in that position in society which your accomplishments so fit you to adorn. I loved you too well to desire that you should be a poor man’s wife, though that poor man had been myself.”
“Well, Mr. Percy, I am very much obliged to you; and let me say that I loved you too well to be anybody’s wife but yours, though he had been as rich as Girard, and you as poor as Job, when he had lost every thing but life. Is there any thing in that to make you sad?”
“But, my dear Theodosia, I have been led to feel that I must abandon my profession, and with it all my hopes of wealth, or even of a comfortable subsistence. I can easily submit to this for myself, but I have no right to subject you to want and obscurity.”
“Then I suppose you have, with many others, come to the conclusion that no strictly honest Christian man can be successful as a lawyer?”
“No, no: the law, indeed, presents great temptations, but I know many an honest lawyer. It is not because I have any objection to my present profession, but because I am drawn so forcibly towards another, that I feel compelled to give it up.”
“It is true, then,” said she, while a gleam of hope and joy flashed from her eyes, and she leaned towards him as she spoke: “it is true that my prayer is heard, and God has called you to become a minister of his Word.”
“I have indeed been led to determine, as God shall open up the way for me, to spend my life in preaching Jesus to the lost.”
“And did you fancy this would be sad news to me, that you came with such a sorrowful face to tell me of it? It has been for weeks the great desire of my heart, and the chief burden of my prayers.”
“But, my dear Theo., you do not consider that to be a Baptist minister is to be poor—to spend a life of hardship and toil without reward—almost, as I am told, without the means of comfortable subsistence. I have lived long enough to know that the wants of life are stern realities: they must be provided for. We have both of us been accustomed to the enjoyment of some of even the elegances of social life. It will be scarcely possible for us to live in comfort upon such a sum as Baptist churches are accustomed to pay their ministers, even if I should realize as much as the best of them and that I cannot look for. What I have been thinking of is this: if I could give some five years to the law, I might secure a sum sufficient for our comfort; and then I could give myself entirely to the work of the Master.”
“And if in those five years souls should perish that you might have been the instrument to save—what then?”
“It is that which perplexes me.”
“Will you permit me,” inquired she, “to advise you? I know that I have no acquaintance with business; but one thing I am sure of, and that is, duty must be done, let consequences be what they may.”
“But have not consequences something to do in determining what is duty?”
“Surely they have; and if the loss of never-dying souls is likely to be the consequence of your taking time to make a little fortune, it seems to me you will not hesitate. As for me, I am not desirous to be rich. I find more promises to the poor than to the wealthy, and great promises to those who have abandoned houses and lands for Christ.”
“But Dr. Woodruff assures me that the Baptist churches do so little for their ministers, that it is impossible for a family to live comfortably upon the scanty pittance which they reluctantly give, rather as charity than wages, for his self-denying labor.”
“What if the Doctor does say this? Jesus Christ says, Lay not up for yourself treasure upon earth. He says, Take no thought what you shall eat or what you shall drink, for our Heavenly Father knoweth that we have need of these things; and He who feeds the sparrows, and clothes the lilies, will also care for us.”
“But I don’t feel as though I can trust myself, and especially yourself, to the tender mercies of these Baptist churches; though I am sure the facts can’t be quite so bad as my friend represented them.”
“But don’t you see, Mr. Percy, that we don’t have to trust to THE CHURCHES, but to our Father in heaven, who holds the hearts of all men in his hands? The silver is his, and the gold also; and the cattle upon a thousand hills. Let us humbly try to do his will, and HE will see to it that we have all we need.”
“So you are willing to risk all, and really think I ought to enter at once upon this work?”
“Why no, Mr. Percy, I am not willing to risk any thing. I have God’s promise that we shall be provided for; and it is not risking any thing to believe that God tells the truth, and to take him at his word. We will do what he requires, and he will do what he has promised. It can’t be otherwise.”
“But see how the churches have left good old Mr. Doe to pine in poverty, after he has given his life to their service.”
“Yes, I have heard of that. It may be that the churches have done wrong; but if old Brother Doe has trusted in God, he is not the loser by his poverty. All things are working together for his good. We may be left to suffer poverty also. It was no more than Jesus did for us; and if it should be so, we may rejoice, even in our poverty, that we are permitted to suffer for his sake; for the apostle says, if we suffer with him, we shall also be glorified with him.”
“May God bless you, my angel of hope and love! Would that I had your faith! But it shall be as you suggest. I will give up all—I will proclaim Christ’s gospel, and trust Christ for the results. It was not for myself, but on your account that I hesitated; but you are the helper of my weakness. I will try to trust in God, as you do. But there is one thing yet which troubles me. The facts related to me by Dr. Woodruff in regard to the parsimony of these Baptist churches in the support of their ministry, have raised in my mind a doubt—in fact, a serious doubt—whether they are, after all, the churches of Jesus Christ.”
“How so?”
“The Lord Jesus, both by his personal teachings and by the teachings of his Spirit, inculcated liberality. His people must be a liberal people. He charged them again and again to give; instructed them to labor, working with their hands; not that they might lay up wealth, but that they might have something to give to him that needeth. He warned them not to lay up their treasures on the earth, and assured them that they could not serve God and money, (for that is the meaning of ‘Mammon.’) He told them that it was more blessed to give than to receive; that the ministers of his gospel were worthy of their hire; that those who preached the gospel should live of the gospel; that those who ministered in spiritual things should be ministered unto in carnal things; and now, in view of all this, when I find a church that is willing to enjoy the labors and instructions of a minister of Jesus without return, or one so avaricious as to give only the very smallest pittance that will secure a sermon once a month, while they are abundantly able to provide comfortably for a pastors support, I can’t help thinking it is not his church; and I would not like to be connected with it, either as a member or a minister.”
“It is probable that you do not yet know all the facts in regard to this matter. You have beard one side; Mr. Courtney, or some other Baptist of experience and observation, could tell you the other. As for our little church, it has but just now been organized; and you know very well it is unable to do much, and so it may be with many others. Let this thought pass till you get more accurate information; and now tell me by what means you have been led to feel that you must give yourself to the ministry.”[4]
“I hardly know when or how this conviction came into my mind: but from the time I found myself trusting in Jesus as a lost and helpless sinner, and felt that I was saved by his abounding goodness and almighty power, I gave myself to him. Since then I have felt that I am not my own, but His who died to save me; I must live, not for myself, but for him; I must not do what is desirable to myself, but what is pleasing to him. When I was beginning to recover from that sickness which prostrated me so suddenly, I became conscious of an impression upon my mind that if I recovered I must give myself to the work of the ministry. At first I cast aside the thought as utterly preposterous. I had spent my youth and early manhood in preparing for another occupation, with which I had no reason to be dissatisfied, and upon which I had already entered: why should I now change all my plans? But the impression continually returned: it came with greater and greater power. I tried to reason it away, but still I felt that I must preach; and at length, since I have been entirely restored, I find my highest reason taking sides with the feeling. Souls are perishing; God has instituted the ministry as one means—perhaps the chief means—of bringing them to salvation; I have the capacity to study and to teach; I can preach, and if I can I must preach, and thus do what I can to make known to the lost the glorious gospel of the Son of God.
“But I had never thought until to-day of all the difficulties in the way of doing so. I did not realize till now that to become a minister of the gospel was to place my ear to the door-post, and have it bored, in token of perpetual servitude. I never felt till to-day that by determining to be a minister among the Baptists I resigned all hope not only of preferment and honor—not only of wealth and ease, but of even what will to us be the comforts, almost the necessaries, of life. I never felt till to-day that to be a minister was not only to be poor, but to be dependent; to be regarded by the churches and my brethren not as a laborer worthy of his hire, but as a needy pensioner, not upon their bounty, but upon their parsimony; to feel that when I had abandoned wealth and fame and ease and comfort for their sake and the gospel’s, that they would but regard me as an object of their charity—a fit subject for their alms. But even this I did not shrink from till I thought of you. I could endure it for myself; but how can I see you subjected to such things?”
“O, don’t be troubled about me: our Heavenly Father will see to it that have no sorrow to endure, no hardship to bear, that is not for my good. Does he not say that all things shall work together for the good of them that love him? And what if we should suffer all these things? Has he not bidden us, having merely food and raiment, therewith to be content; and told us that these light afflictions, which are but for a moment, shall work out for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory? We do not need the comforts of the world when we have the joys of his salvation. We do not need the honors of the world when we have that honor which cometh from God only.”
“Well, my darling comforter, let it be so. We will enter upon this work of saving souls together: together we will labor, together we will study, together we will pray, and you shall teach me how to walk by faith and not by sight, and to endure as seeing HIM who is invisible.”
The evening of the next Sabbath had been appointed for his baptism. The crowd that gathered on the river-bank would probably have been larger than had ever assembled there on a similar occasion, but that a sudden shower of rain shut many up at home, and scattered most of those who had come out. He walked firmly and calmly into the water, was baptized, and came up out of the water, but gave no expression to his thoughts or feelings. Except the simple baptismal hymn which the brethren and sisters sang as they were going down the bank, all was silence. Some hard hands grasped his most heartily as he came up; but his formal recognition as a church member was postponed until the regular prayer-meeting on Tuesday night.
At that time, after the ordinary exercises of singing and prayer, Mr. Courtney, who had been created one of the deacons of the church when it was organized a few weeks before, requested the brethren to resolve themselves into a church meeting for the transaction of certain business. This was done by calling one of the deacons to preside, (there being no pastor,) singing a verse or two of a familiar hymn, and invoking the presence and sanction of the Master of assemblies.
Mr. Courtney then suggested that Brother Percy should now be formally recognized as a member of that church by extending to him the right hand of fellowship, which they had no good opportunity to give him at the water’s side.
Mr. Percy took his stand in a convenient place, and the deacons first, and then the brethren and the sisters, passed by in regular order, and each gave to him the hand of fellowship Nor was this a mere form. He saw tears in many eyes. He saw deep feeling upon almost every face, and could not help realizing that with their hands they gave their hearts in Christian love. When this was done, Mr. Courtney arose and spoke somewhat as follows:
“Brethren and sisters:—I have learned that our young brother whom we have just received has felt himself called to the work of the ministry. It is proper for the church to give her sanction to that call, if she should think it in fact the call of God. In order that we may have an opportunity to judge in reference to this point, and learn for ourselves concerning his aptness to teach, I move you that our brother Percy be requested to exercise his gifts among us. Though but recently made one of our company, we have long known him as an upright and moral man. Some of us know that, like Timothy, he has been taught the Scriptures from a child and now that he has been taught of the Spirit, we may reasonably expect that he may be able to teach others. He is not like the ‘novice,’ newly converted from heathenism, for he has been thoroughly instructed in the doctrines and precepts of our holy religion; and though it will be proper for him to make further proof of his call before he can be ordained to the ministry, yet I conceive there will be no impropriety in his entering at once upon the work of calling sinners to repentance. Shall we invite him to proclaim the gospel in our hearing on next Sabbath, that we may have an opportunity to understand the nature of his gifts?”
As the vote was about to be taken, Mr. Percy arose and said, “Excuse me, brethren: I have indeed felt that it is my duty to preach Christ’s gospel. Nay, I feel that ‘woe is me if I preach not the gospel;’ and in my purpose I have already given myself up solely to this work. But I am not ready to enter upon those duties now. I need a course of careful study. I must read some system of divinity. I acknowledge to you that, so far as I can now remember, I have never read a strictly theological book. I am, therefore, utterly unprepared at __this time to preach the glorious gospel of our blessed Lord. But by God’s mercy I hope soon to obtain the needful qualifications, if intense study and an earnest desire for knowledge can secure them.”
“Our brother,” replied Mr. Courtney, “mistakes our purpose. We do not propose now to ordain him an elder, or, what is the same thing, a bishop. We need some proof of his call of God before we can do that. But we propose merely to ask and authorize him to show, by teaching us, his capacity to teach, and his qualifications for the work to which he thinks that God has called him. Let him study as diligently as he will, it will not hinder his studies to tell us from week to week what he has learned. But we trust that he will remember that our book of divinity is the Bible, and our theology is all to be found in that one comprehensive work. Our gospel is Christ, and him crucified, with those doctrines and precepts which gather of necessity around this one great centre of our faith and hope. Let him take the New Testament, and study (not merely read) the teachings of Christ and the apostles, until his very soul is imbued with their meaning, and baptized in their spirit, and then come and tell to us what they have taught to him, and he will be just such a teacher as many of us are just now needing.”
The church invited him to speak to them on the next Sabbath; and after his previous convictions of duty, he did not dare to refuse.
This was on Tuesday night. On Thursday there was a little company of friends gathered in Mrs. Ernest’s little parlor, and Miss Theodosia Ernest became Mrs. Percy.
On Sabbath morning, with many fears, and a heart crying within him, “Who is sufficient for these things?” Mr. Percy preached his first sermon. His mind was strong, and had been thoroughly trained to close investigation and independent thought. His mother had in his childhood made him familiar with the letter of the Scriptures. And now that the Master himself had in his experience taught him their spirit and their power, it is not to be wondered at that from the very first he proved a most acceptable expounder of Christian truth to the earnest-hearted but mostly uneducated people who composed his congregations. They were without a pastor: and, by a sort of unexpressed but mutual understanding, he became from that time forth their minister, until the time had passed which was required to close up his legal business. Meantime he had been a diligent student of the mysteries of the gospel. He felt that he had not time to read through the ponderous tomes of what are called systems of divinity. By the advice of Mr. Courtney, he took a shorter, if not a surer way to learn the truth. He knew that he was to teach the things which were contained in one Book. He made that Book his daily study. He not merely read, but searched the Scriptures daily. He selected subjects instead of texts as the basis of his discourses; and when he had chosen his subject, he took his concordance and gathered all the passages which were fitted to throw any light upon it. These texts he copied out upon a sheet of paper, so that he might have them all before him at a glance. He analyzed and classified them to get the distinctive meaning of each. Then he referred to several of the best commentators, and made his mind familiar with their exposition and criticisms, not on the single verse which was to be nominally the text of his discourse, but upon all the sometimes numerous passages connected with his subject. And when he felt that he had thus learned the teachings of the Holy Word, he was prepared to bring forth his treasures from an abundant storehouse, not crammed with “learned lumber of the brain,” but full of things useful to the edifying of those who wished to know what the Master teaches in his Word. Thus he studied, and thus he preached; and God was pleased to bless his ministry, from the very first, to the conviction and conversion of sinners, and the comforting and building up of the saints.
About the time he closed his business, and was prepared to give himself entirely to the work of the gospel, he received a call from a church in one of the growing little cities of the South-west, and was ordained as their elder, or bishop, and pastor. In the intensity of his early zeal, he had overtasked his powers and undermined his health; and, at the earnest solicitation of his people, had left them for a few weeks, to recuperate his failing strength by a visit to the hill country of Tennessee.
THIRD DAY’S TRAVEL
In which the precise difference which exists between the kingdom of Christ and the Church of Christ is still further developed, and some other remarkable things concerning the Church are brought to light.
WHEN the company had assembled the next morning, the Doctor introduced the conversation thus:
“I think, sir, that you made a distinction yesterday between the Church of Christ and the kingdom of Christ, in such a way that you considered the Church as a local organization, established for a particular purpose within the kingdom—a part of the apparatus or machinery of the kingdom, if I may speak so.”
“You did not far mistake my meaning,” replied Mr. Courtney; “but as this idea is fundamental to the object which we have before us to-day, let me explain a little more particularly.
“We have seen that ‘The kingdom of Christ,’ ‘The kingdom of God,’ and ‘The kingdom of Heaven,’ as employed in the New Testament, are synonymous terms, and are used to designate that institution which was set up by Christ while he was upon the earth. It was not the Jewish kingdom, for the Jewish prophets told of it as something yet to come. It was not in being yet when Christ appeared, for he dated it from the preaching of John. It was then that the time was fulfilled, and the kingdom of God was set up. This kingdom was that economy of separation or assortment into which the penitent and the believing who trusted in Jesus as Messias the Saviour were introduced by baptism according to Christ’s appointment.
“Those coming out from the mass, (whether Jews or Gentiles,) and openly, by their own act, acknowledging him before the world in that significant rite which he had instituted for the purpose, became his visible people. They put on his livery; were called by his name; became obedient to his laws; and he was thus, in sight of all the world, their Lord and King. Now this kingdom was to continue to the end of time, and to extend to all the world. Whenever and wherever any one should be found repenting of sin, and trusting in Christ for salvation, he was prepared to become a subject of this kingdom. It was proper that he should be baptized, and thus become formally united with those of whom the kingdom should consist. He was already a subject in his heart, and was prepared to become one, at his own request, in fact and in form. But without some such a formal recognition of the incoming members, there would be no visible distinction between his people and the people of the world. Some form was needful, and the King appointed this. BAPTISM IS, THEREFORE, THE DOOR OF ENTRANCE INTO HIS VISIBLE KINGDOM. Those who have not entered by THIS door are not members of it. They may be pious: they may be penitent: they may be believers: they may be the friends of the King: they may even be favorites of the King; but until they have openly put on Christ, and acknowledged him before the world, (not in such a way as they may think proper, but in the way of HIS appointment,) they are not and should not be regarded as belonging to his VISIBLE kingdom. To be a member of the Jewish kingdom, one must not only be a man free from certain defects and blemishes, and a worshipper of Israel’s God, but he-must also be circumcised; so, to be a member of this new kingdom, one must not only repent and believe, but he must also be baptized. The condition is imperative and unconditional. There is no exception, and no room for evasion. Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t say that baptism is essential to salvation: THAT depends on penitence and faith: but baptism is essential to membership in Christ’s visible kingdom upon the earth.
“The visible kingdom of Christ, therefore, (which is that we have been talking of) consists of all those who have openly professed their penitence for sin and faith in Christ, and have then been baptized into his name, in accordance with his appointment. It is composed of these; and it contains no others, simply because, according to the laws of the King, these are the indispensable requisites for membership.
“We now, I trust, understand what is meant by the kingdom, when spoken of as a visible organization; and if so, we are prepared to take another step, and learn what is meant, in the Scriptures, by the ‘Church of Christ.’
“Let me premise, however, that our English word church is a term of such various and doubtful meaning, as it is commonly employed, that we must define it before we use it, or else we shall soon find ourselves embarrassed and confused by it. You know that it sometimes means the house where people worship, and sometimes the people who worship in the house. Sometimes it is applied to a particular congregation of professed Christians, and sometimes to all who hold to a particular set of doctrines. Sometimes it applies to all of some particular persuasion in some designated country, as the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, or of the United States. Some writers use it to signify all those of every name or order who profess to believe in Christ; others limit it to the special organization in connection with which they happen to be living. It is therefore necessary for us, if we would ascertain what the Scriptures mean when they use the word church, to go to them for its definition. Their use of it is definite, and easily understood: they clearly explain themselves. The Greek word is ekklesia. It occurs in the singular or plural number one hundred and fifteen times in the New Testament; and is translated ‘church,’ in our version, in every place but three. To obtain a correct conception of its scriptural meaning, we must examine the passages where it occurs; but in doing this, we must not forget that it had a meaning, as distinct and as well settled as any other Greek word, before it was employed by Christ and his apostles; and, consequently, they must have had regard to its original signification when they employed and appropriated it. This is as true of ekklesia as it is of baptisma; and we must go to Greece for the fundamental idea which both the words contain. They were both purely Greek words; they originated among the Greeks, and their meaning was fixed by the usage of the Greek language.”
“Please then tell us, Mr. Courtney, what was the Grecian usage in reference to this word. What did it mean as a Greek would have employed it, in speaking or writing to the Grecians?”
“You will understand it better,” said he, “if I tell you first its origin. It was derived originally from another Greek word, ‘ekkalein,’ which signified to call out from. Now, you know the government of the ancient cities of Greece was democratic; that is, it was exercised by the qualified citizens assembled in a lawful meeting, for the transaction of business. The meetings were called together by the town-crier, and hence were named ‘ekklesia,’ the ‘called out;’ that is, the assembly of qualified citizens called out from the mass of the population. The same idea, or one very similar to it, is contained in our English word convocation, when applied to an assembly called together for some specific purpose. The Greek ‘ekklesia’ consisted of certain individuals, who, when assembled and organized, constituted an official body for the transaction of such business as might come before them. It was not merely an assembly, but an official assembly, consisting of persons specifically qualified, and who had each his specific rights and duties as a member of the ekklesia. It was not every resident in the city who was, strictly speaking, a citizen; nor was it every citizen who was a member of the ekklesia to which was intrusted the management of public business; but the ekklesia were called out from the mass. The word was perhaps sometimes, though rarely, applied to ordinary and unofficial meetings. It seems to be so used in one case by Luke, (Acts xix. 32,) to designate the irregular and riotous assembly which rushed into the public hall called in the Greek, the ‘theatron;’ and the most part of whom knew not why they had come together. But a careful and critical examination of the whole context in the original shows that here, as elsewhere, its common and restricted meaning is preserved; for the word ekklesia, rendered assembly in the thirty-second verse, is not the same that is rendered ‘people,’ in the twenty-sixth verse, nor that rendered ‘the people,’ in the thirtieth; nor did it apply to the noisy rabble whom the town clerk (the recorder or presiding officer of the ekklesia) at last succeeded in appeasing, after they had been for two long hours screeching the praises of Diana. But when the riot began, and the city was aroused, the ‘ekklesia’ probably rushed in haste, and in an irregular manner, to their place of meeting, the theatron. The populace entered with them; and the tumult was so great, that the ekklesia could not be properly organized: it was therefore confused and illegal. Hence the recorder says, in the thirty-ninth verse, after explaining that the present business belonged rather to the bench of Roman deputies than to them—‘But if ye inquire concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful (ekklesia) assembly;’ that is, in a regularly adjourned or regularly called meeting of the ekklesia; and then, in the fortieth verse, when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the ekklesia.
“These three are the only places in which the word, as used in the New Testament, is not translated church. Here it is rendered assembly; and commonly, at that time, it signified an official and organized assembly.
“It would have been better translated by assembly than by church, in Acts vii. 38, when Stephen is speaking of the rebellious Jews who rejected Moses and thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. It was ‘an assembly in the wilderness’—perhaps an organized, official assembly—called together to transact the public business, or deliberate on the affairs of the nation; but it was no Church of Christ. Every assembly was not an ekklesia, nor was every ekklesia an ekklesia of Christ.”
“I was just going to ask,” said Mrs. Percy, “whether every religious assembly would not, according to your account of the matter, be called a Christian Church?”
“Have a little patience, madam. We have now seen the origin of the word, and the meaning which it had when Christ adopted it and applied it to his institution. It yet remains to see to what sort of an institution it was that he applied it. It must have been an assembly; and this assembly must have consisted of those chosen or called to a participation in its privileges, otherwise there would be an inappropriateness in the name, which signified the called assembly. The literal meaning, therefore, of the ‘ekklesia of Christ,’ rendered in our Bible the ‘Church of Christ,’ could be no other than the official, or called assembly of Jesus Christ. It was an assembly of HIS people, meeting in HIS name, and transacting business by HIS authority. Not some invisible abstraction, but an actual business-doing assembly, to whom an injured brother might go and tell his grievance; and whose decision in the case should be final and conclusive. (Matt. xviii. 15–18.)
“Now, if you want to know the character and qualifications of the members of this official assembly of Jesus Christ: if you want to know whether they were converted or unconverted, baptized or unbaptized: whether they were men and women grown, or little puling babes, you have only to look at the pattern which was modelled by Christ himself; and of which we have a description in the Acts of the Apostles, which, though brief, is so minute and comprehensive as not to leave any essential feature out of view.”
“Please show us that description, Mr. Courtney. It is just what I have beer looking for,” said Dr. Thinkwell.
“Here is the most of it, sir, in the first few chapters. Luke begins this history by reminding his friend Theophilus that he had previously written to him, giving an account of all that Jesus did while he remained upon the earth. He tells him that Christ, after his resurrection, spent some forty days with the apostles, instructing then: in the things pertaining to the kingdom of God; and then, having charged them to remain together in Jerusalem till they should receive the promised influences of the Holy Spirit, he ascended up to heaven. After this, some ten days, until the feast of Pentecost, were spent in prayer by them, and the women and the brethren of the Lord, in a large upper-room, somewhere in the city. Some time during these ten days Peter stood up in the midst of the assembly and suggested an item of business. It seems that this assembly consisted of certain specified and recognized persons, who were known by name, and, most probably, regularly enrolled; for ‘the number of the names together was about one hundred and twenty.’ (15th verse.) These hundred and twenty, you will observe, were all disciples: ‘Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples.’ They had, therefore, been taught; and they were also praying people. They were men and women. They had all an equal voice in the business, for ‘they’ (not Peter) nominated the candidates; and, after prayer for heavenly guidance, they cast their ‘lots,’ and Matthias was elected.[5]
“Here we have the first account of one of these chosen assemblies regularly organized and doing business in the name of Christ. To these disciples, after the Spirit was poured out upon the day of Pentecost, three thousand more were added. How were they added? ‘They gladly received the word, AND WERE BAPTIZED.’ After their baptism, ‘they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers;’ ‘and the Lord added daily to the ekklesia such as should be saved.’ In the fifth chapter we read that at the death of Ananias and Sapphira great fear came upon all the ekklesia. It was this ekklesia that from their own number chose the deacons to attend to the distribution of the provisions for the poor. It was this ekklesia in which prayer was made for Peter without ceasing when he was thrown into the prison. This ekklesia, in Acts viii. 1, is more specifically designated as the ‘ekklesia which was at Jerusalem.’ It was, therefore, a local and limited organization. It was one assembly, and no more. It was the first and oldest of the many Churches which were formed during the lifetime of the apostles. It was the Church in which they had their membership; and on these accounts its advice was sought, and its decisions regarded as of peculiar value, but it never claimed any superiority over the other Churches which were organized upon the same model and by the same authority.
“Here, then, is the embodiment of the scriptural idea of a Church of Jesus Christ. It is an assembly of those who have repented of sin, believed on Christ, and then have been baptized: who meet together in regular order to break the bread and drink the wine in his remembrance, and to transact business in his name.
“The Church at Jerusalem was no more a Church than was ‘the Church at Antioch,’ or the ‘Church in Ephesus,’ or ‘the church of God in Corinth,’ or ‘the Church of the Laodiceans.’ Each of these was a separate, distinct, and independent organization. We find no record of such an ‘establishment’ as the Church of Judea; but we read of the ‘Churches throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria:’ so we read of ‘the Churches of Macedonia,’ ‘the Churches of Galatia,’ and ‘the Churches of Asia.’ There are no national Churches. There are no provincial Churches. There are no branches of the Church at Jerusalem, or any other Church. No Church is ever called a part of any other Church. Each ekklesia was complete in itself. It was the assembly which Christ had called out from the world, in the place where it was located. It was, therefore, called the ‘ekklesia’—the assembly of Jesus Christ in such or such a place. It is this, and nothing more.”
“I wish it were possible for us,” said Mrs. Percy, “to turn at once to each place where the word is found and read it in its connection. I always feel more certain that I know the truth when I have examined into the matter for myself.”
“It is not only possible, but very easy to gratify your desire madam. I have a Greek concordance in my trunk, and we can in a few minutes find every single passage in which the word ekklesia occurs.”
He went to his state-room, and presently returned with the convenient volume.
“Now,” said he, “take the Bible, and find the places as point them out. But first, I will remark that I have been over this ground more than once before this, and can, therefore, suggest a classification of these passages which will assist us in our endeavor to arrive at the strict and actual signification of the word, as it is used by the New Testament writers. For instance, it is used three times, Acts xix. 32, 39, 41, in reference to the assembly which gathered in the city of Ephesus, about the matter of Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen. These places we have already seen. It means here simply a secular assembly, and has no sort of reference to a religious institution. Then it occurs twice where it refers to a Jewish assembly—first in Acts vii. 38, where Stephen informs the Jews that Moses was in the ‘ekklesia’ in the wilderness with the angel that spake unto him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the lively oracles to give unto us. That ‘ekklesia,’ however, was not Christ’s ekklesia. It was composed of those ‘who would not obey:’ (verse 39:) who ‘made a calf and worshipped it:’ (verse 41:) whom ‘God turned from and gave them up to worship the hosts of heaven;’ (verse 42;) and who were just such rebels as the persecutors whom Stephen was then addressing; for in verse 51, he says: ‘Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.’ The other passage in which it refers to a Jewish assembly is Hebrews ii. 12: ‘In the midst of the church will I sing praise of thee.’ This is merely a quotation from Psalm xxii. 22, where it is rendered congregation ‘In the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.’
“We have now one hundred and ten places remaining in which the word refers in some sense to the Christian institution. In most of these you will find it signifies literally and unequivocally a local assembly of Christ’s disciples, such as we have seen exemplified in the ‘Church which was at Jerusalem.’ The first two of these are in Matthew xviii. 17: ‘If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.’ This was a local body. If it had not been, the aggrieved disciple could not know where to find it, or how to address it. The offender was a brother, and the two or three whom he should take for witnesses were also brethren in this Church. Here is the first and fundamental law of Church authority and discipline. The brethren were to live together in love and harmony; but if one felt himself aggrieved, he should first go and try the effect of a personal interview: if this should fail to restore a right state of feeling, take two or three of the brethren and talk the matter over in their presence. If this should fail, then he should call the matter up before the ekklesia—the body of disciples assembled in their official capacity, to transact business in the name of Christ—and from their decision there should be no appeal. That such was the understanding of the apostles, and such the practice of the Churches founded by them, we will see before we have gone through with all these texts. It will be manifest that it was the Church, (‘the ekklesia,’) the local society of Christians assembled for business, not a ‘session,’ or ‘consistory,’ or ‘presbytery,’ or ‘synod,’ or ‘conference,’ much less a ‘class-leader,’ or ‘preacher,’ ‘deacon,’ ‘elder,’ ‘priest,’ or ‘bishop,’ to whom this power was intrusted, and by whom it was exercised. But let us go on. You will find in the next place Acts ii. 47, that the first Church was already organized, and ‘the Lord was adding to it daily such as should be saved.’ This was the local body, the number of the names in which was, a few days before, about one hundred and twenty; but to which three thousand had been added on the day of Pentecost, and which continued to hold daily meetings in the temple, and from house to house, praising God, and having favor with all the people.
“In the next place, Acts v. 11, we read that when Peter had so signally punished the wicked covetousness and falsehood of Ananias and his wife, ‘Great fear came upon all the Church, and upon as many as heard these things.’ And the next time it is mentioned, Acts viii. 1, even before any other similar society is organized, as if to show at once and for ever that each ekklesia was to be separate and distinct from every other as being complete within itself, this Church is specifically designated as the ‘Church which was at Jerusalem.’ At that time there was a great persecution against the ‘Church which was at Jerusalem.’ And then in the third verse, ‘As for Saul, he made havoc of the Church:’ that is, the Church at Jerusalem, for he had not yet gone to Damascus, or left the city of Jerusalem.
“Now turn to the next chapter, Acts ix. 31, and you will see this idea further developed. The ‘Church which was at Jerusalem’ no longer stood alone. It was no longer the Church. It was the first Church. It was the model Church. It was that in which the idea of Christ, when he spake of his Church, was first actually embodied and exemplified. It was the pattern after which other churches were to be fashioned and to which in every essential particular they must conform. But it was not the only Church: it was one of a multitude, for here we read, ‘Then had the Churches rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.’
“This is remarkable. We do not read that the Church of Jerusalem had extended herself, and had become the Church of Judea, or the Church of Galilee, or the Church of Samaria. Neither here nor anywhere do we read of a territorial or a provincial Church. Nowhere is there a word about any great ‘establishment,’ comprising in its limits a multitude of local societies, and called ‘the Church,’ like the Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church, etc. Each local organization was a Church complete within itself. Each was as much a Church as any other. Each was independent of all others. But this fact will be still more manifest as we proceed. The next place is Acts xi. 22, where the Church in Jerusalem is again specially designated: When tidings of these things came to the ears of the Church which was in Jerusalem, they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
“Barnabas went first to Tarsus, Paul’s native city; and when he had found the new disciple, he brought him on to Antioch; and for a whole year you read (verse 26) that these two men ‘assembled with the Church in that city, and taught much people.’ This Church appears to have been a missionary Church as well as that at Jerusalem; for after Paul and Barnabas had preached to them a year or so, they sent them away to found new churches in other places, as you may see in the thirteenth chapter. But the next place where the word Church (ekklesia) occurs is the first verse of the twelfth chapter, where the history returns to the ‘Church which was at Jerusalem,’ and informs us that Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the Church, and killed James and imprisoned Peter; and in the fifth verse, that ‘Prayer was made without ceasing in the Church unto God for him.’ This does not mean in the building or edifice in which they met for worship, for history informs us that the Christians had no such buildings for some two hundred years after this, but continued to meet from house to house, or in the Jewish synagogues, or wherever they might. And the word (ekklesia) is never used in the New Testament, or any other Greek book written before or during the time of the apostles, to signify a house or building. Prayer was made in the assembly of the disciples. This was Christ’s Church which was at Jerusalem.
“The history then goes back to Antioch, and we read of ‘the Church that was in Antioch,’ as we have several times read of ‘the Church that was in Jerusalem.’ There were prophets in this Church, and the Church recognized their authority, and acted in accordance with their instructions, and sent out Paul and Barnabas on a missionary tour. They went as far as Derbe, and then returned over the ground they had passed, ‘confirming the souls of the disciples’ they had made, ‘exhorting them to continue in the faith;’ ‘and when they had ordained them elders (Acts xiv. 23) in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed.’ Then after a time they came again to Antioch, and reported their work. They gathered the Church together (verse 27) and rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
“But when certain Jews came to Antioch and taught that the Gentile brethren must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, Paul and Barnabas had much controversy with them, and it was determined to have the opinion of the apostles and elders, who, having the spirit of inspiration, were able to decide the question authoritatively, and that for this purpose Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem. They were brought on their way by the Church at Antioch, (verse 3,) and were joyfully received by the Church at Jerusalem, (verse 4,) and by the apostles and elders. When the apostles and elders came together to consider of the business, it seems that it was in a great Church meeting, for (verse 12) all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And when they had finished their narrative, James made a short speech about the business in hand, and then (verse 22) we read that it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole (ekklesia) Church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
“That was a wise precaution; for as Paul and Barnabas were known to be bitter opponents of the Judaizing teachers, those men might say, in the absence of such witnesses, that they had perverted or misrepresented the decision of the apostles and elders.”
“But, my dear sir,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “do you not see in the very fact that Antioch sent to Jerusalem about this matter, a recognition of the superior authority of the Church at Jerusalem? This fact alone must for ever set aside your theory of Church independence. Antioch brethren disagree: the contention grows so strong that it is like to distract and divide the Church. They do not decide for themselves, but send to a distant city to another Church, and ask it to determine for them. Now what possible necessity for this if the Church at Antioch was entirely the equal of the Church at Jerusalem, and just as competent to decide upon any question of faith or practice?”
“Read the twenty-fourth verse, Doctor, and you will see one reason, if not the only reason, why Antioch asked of why Jerusalem gave the advice: ‘Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, and saying that ye must be circumcised and keep the law; to whom WE gave no such commandment.’ These teachers had come from Jerusalem They had been members of the Jerusalem Church. They claimed to speak by the authority of the apostles, and doubtless to conform to the practice of that Church, which, as we have already seen, was the model by which others were to be fashioned.
“Nothing could be more natural and proper, therefore, than to send to Jerusalem to inquire if these things were so? had the apostles so decreed? was this the custom of that Church? But besides this, you will observe that although the apostles and elders associated the whole Church which was at Jerusalem with them in their consultations and in their letter, yet the Church at Antioch did not send to the Church at Jerusalem, but to the ‘apostles and elders,’ (verse 2.) The apostles were everywhere recognized as speaking by Divine authority, and as fully authorized by Christ to set in order all things relating to his kingdom. The apostles had the power without the elders and without the Church. Any one of them had the power without the advice or authority of the others to decide such questions as these, and it was their decision that was asked for. But to show how little they were like modern bishops—how careful they were to shun even the appearance of lording it over God’s heritage—they called the brethren of their own Church into their council, and issued their decision not only in their own name, but in that of the brethren, taking care, however, to rest its binding force upon the fact that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us (verse 28) to lay on you no greater burden than these necessary things, etc.”
“I see, sir, that you are correct. Go on with the texts.”
“You will find the next one, Mrs. Percy, in the last verse 41st of this same chapter: ‘He went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches.’ In the 4th verse of the next chapter, (xvi.,) you have some further light upon this decision of the apostles. It is there distinctly recognized, not as the decrees of the Church at Jerusalem, but of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. In the 5th, you learn that the Churches were established in the faith, and increased in number daily.
“From Acts xviii. 22, we learn that there was a Church at Caesarea. Paul landed there, went up and saluted the Church, and then went on to Antioch. From Acts xx. 17, we learn that Paul sent to Ephesus while he was at Miletus, and called together the elders of the Church, whom he addressed in that most pathetic and sublime speech of which the 28th verse is a part: ‘Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, (literally bishops,) to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.’ This Church must have been the Church at Ephesus, as that was the only flock of which they could be considered as the shepherds or overseers. There is no other place where the word occurs in the Acts of the Apostles; so you may now turn to Romans xvi., where, in the 1st verse, Phœbe is called a sister, and the servant of the Church which is at Cenchrea. In the 4th verse, Paul speaks of ‘all the Churches of the Gentiles.’ In the 5th, of the Church that is in the house of Aquila and Priscilla. To the 10th, he says the Churches of Christ give salutation to the Roman Christians; and in the 22d, he calls Gaius not only his host, but that of the whole Church, by which I suppose he means either that his house was open to every Church member who would visit him; or, more probably, that the ‘ekklesia’ met at his house for worship and business.”
“Dear me,” exclaimed a lady, with a sigh, “I hope you are nearly through with this long catalogue of texts. I am getting heartily tired of hearing the same thing over and over again; and I am sure, if your object was to show that a scriptural Church was a local and independent corporation, you have proved it more than twenty times. Why shall we not take that point as fixed and settled, and go on to something else?”
“O no,” replied Mrs. Percy, “I am greatly interested in this. I have never before made a careful examination of what really is the scriptural idea contained in this word; and as a consequence, my mind has been confused when thinking or speaking or reading about it. It is true, we have now one of the ideas; but it yet remains to be seen if we have them all. The word is used in many places in this sense; but is it not used in some places in some other sense? I cannot be certain about it till we have examined every place; and I am sure it will save time and trouble in our future study to get this lesson perfectly while it is before us. So, Mr. Courtney, please tell us the next place.”
“It is in the 1st verse of the first chapter of First Corinthians; and as your friend seems anxious to get through with this dry business as fast as possible, we may group with this a number of others of the same sort. It is the address or direction, so to speak, of this letter to the Corinthians: ‘To the Church (ekklesia) of God which is at Corinth.’ The address of the second letter is in the same style. That to the Galatians is addressed to the Churches of Galatia; and those to the Thessalonians are addressed to the Church of the Thessalonians. This, you see, disposes of five places at a word. In the fourth chapter of First Corinthians, 17th verse, Paul says he has sent Timothy to bring to their remembrance his ways which are in Christ, as he teaches everywhere in every (‘ekklesia’) Church. In the sixth chapter, 4th verse, he tells them that it would be better to set the least esteemed members of the Church to arbitrate worldly matters, than to go to law before unbelievers: seventh chapter, 17th verse, is the conclusion of his directions about living with unbelieving consorts, at the close of which he says that this is what he ordains in all the Churches: tenth chapter, 32d verse, ‘Give no offence to the Jews or to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God:’ eleventh chapter, 16th verse, ‘We have no such custom, neither the Churches of God;’ 18th verse, ‘When ye come together in the Church (ekklesia) there be divisions among you;’ 22d verse, ‘What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye the ekklesia of God, and shame them that have not?’ twelfth chapter, 28th verse, ‘God hath set in the ekklesia, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets,’ etc.: fourteenth chapter, 4th and 5th verses, ‘He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself, but he that prophesieth edifieth the Church (ekklesia). Greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret that the Church may receive edifying;’ 12th verse, ‘Seek ye that ye may excel, to the edifying of the Church:’ 19th verse, ‘In the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that with my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue;’ 23d verse, ‘If therefore the whole Church come together, and all speak with tongues, and there come in the unlearned or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?’ 28th verse, ‘If there be no interpreter, let him (the speaker in an unknown tongue) keep silence in the ekklesia; but let him speak to himself and to God;’ 33d verse, ‘For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of the saints;’ 35th verse, ‘If they (the women) will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the (ekklesia) Church.’ In the sixteenth chapter, 1st verse, Paul mentions the Churches of Galatia; and in the nineteenth, the Churches of Asia, and the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, before alluded to.
“Now, passing over the address of the Second Epistle, turn to the eighth chapter, where, after mention of the Churches of Macedonia in the first verse, we read, in the 18th and 19th verses, of one whose praise was in all the Churches, and who was chosen by the Churches to travel with Paul; and in the 23d verse, of ‘our brethren the messengers of the Churches,’ before whom and the Churches the Corinthians are exhorted, in the 24th verse, to show evidence of their love. In the 8th verse of the eleventh chapter, the apostle says, ‘I robbed other Churches, taking wages of them to do you service;’ and after enumerating some of his trials, afflictions, persecutions, and troubles, he adds, in the 28th verse, ‘and besides all this, there cometh upon me the care (not of the whole Church, you will observe, but) of all the Churches.’ In the next chapter, 13th verse, he asks the Corinthians wherein they were inferior to other Churches, except in this, that he was not burdensome to them. In Gal. i. 22; mention is made again of the Churches which were in Judea. He tells the Philippians, iv. 15, that no Church, on a certain occasion, communicated with him in giving and receiving but themselves; and in Col. iv. 15, 16, we read of the Church in the house of Nymphas, and the Church of the Laodiceans. In 1 Thess. ii. 14, mention is made again of the Churches of God in Judea. In 2 Thess. iv. 4, Paul declares that he glories or boasts of the Thessalonians in the Churches of God.
“You see, madam,” addressing the unknown lady, “we are getting through with them very rapidly now, and will soon complete the list.”
“O, sir, I am not at all impatient; and indeed, since Mrs Percy’s explanation of the object in view, am as deeply interested as any of you can be; so pray do not omit a single place on my account, nor pass by any carelessly. Let us be sure that we know not only the common meaning, but all the meanings which the word has in the Scriptures, whatever time and trouble may be needful for that purpose.”
“Turn, then, to I Tim. iii. 5, where Paul is describing the character of a bishop or pastor as one who rules well in his own house; ‘for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the ekklesia of God?’ If he could not govern his own family, it might be taken for granted that he would be unfit to preside in the ekklesia, and take the care of souls.”
“Excuse me,” said the Doctor; “I thought a bishop was one who had the care of a diocese including a number of churches.”
“That is the case with modern bishops; but when we come to examine into the nature of the offices established in the first Churches by Christ and the apostles, we will find no such bishops as you are thinking of. A New Testament bishop was simply and only the pastor of a single church. But let that pass for the present; we will bring it up again.
“The next place is in 1 Tim. iii. 13: ‘That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God.’ The word here rendered house does not mean a building, but it is the same which in 1 Cor. i. 16 is translated household or family. ‘I baptized also the household of Stephanas,’ etc. The brethren and sisters in each Church are spoken of as a family, of whom God is the Father and the Head. In the fifth chapter and 16th verse, Paul charges that Church members having widows dependent on them should take care of them, and not throw them upon the Church for support.
“In the next passage, second verse of Philemon, we read of the Church that was in this beloved brother’s house. James, in his Epistle, v. 14, says: ‘If any is sick, let him call for the elders of the Church.’ And John, in the third Epistle, addressed to the well-beloved Gaius, probably the same of whom Paul speaks as his host, and that of the church, says that brethren and strangers have borne witness of his charity before the church; (verse 6;) and informs him that he (John) had written a letter to the church, but that a certain Diotrephes prevented it from being received, and (verse 10) cast certain out of the church, who would receive the brethren by whom he sent it.
“We come now to the last book of the record; and, on some accounts, the most important one in regard to its testimony on this subject, as it shows what the churches were in the last days of which we have any inspired history, and foretells what should befall them in the ages that should follow.
“In Revelation i. 4, 11, 20, you find that they were not yet combined into a diocese, or any ecclesiastical ‘establishment.’ It was not to the Church in general, nor to the Church of Asia, but to ‘the seven Churches which are in Asia,’ that he addressed his words. In the second and third chapters he addresses successively each of these seven Churches by name, and again and again calls upon those who have ears, to hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches. Rev. ii. 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 29. In the twenty-third verse he says, ‘And all the Churches shall know that I am he that searches the reins,’ etc. The third chapter, 1, 6, 7, 13, 14, 22, are, like those passages in the second, all mere forms of address—to the angel of the Church in Sardis, and the like, and repetitions of the phrase, ‘He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.’ And then, to crown the whole, in the last chapter (verse 16) you may read, ‘I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things unto you in the Churches.’
“We have now seen and examined near a hundred of the hundred and fifteen places where the word ekklesia occurs. In all these I think it is very generally conceded that it is employed (where it refers to the Christian institution at all) in a limited and specific sense to denote one local and independent organized body or assembly of Christian people. We will now look at some in which it has commonly been thought to have reference to the whole multitude of the Churches viewed collectively, as though they were a single Church, which might with propriety be called the universal Church, or, in the language of the creed, ‘the holy Catholic Church;’ and we will see, by a careful examination of them, passage by passage, that there is no such idea contained in any one of them. The writers had in their minds no such conception, and their words mean nothing of the sort.”
“Surely, my dear sir,” said Mr. Percy, “you must labor under some mistake in regard to this; for, if I am not misinformed, it has been almost universally conceded by Baptists as well as others, that in some few places ‘the Church’ is certainly employed as synonymous with ‘the kingdom,’ and refers to all the Churches of Christ, in every age and nation, considered as one vast united organization: that body of which Christ was the head: that great assembly for which he gave himself, to redeem it unto God. Do not even our own best scholars and critics take this for granted?”
“What if they do, my friend? It does not follow that we must take it for granted too. We are making an independent examination for ourselves, in order to learn what is the scriptural meaning of the word ekklesia, rendered in our version Church. We do not ask what this man or that man has thought it to mean: we go for ourselves to the fountainhead. We travel back to Greece, before our Saviour’s day, and see in what sense the word was used in the language to which it belonged before it was taken up by the Master and appropriated to his institution. We turn to the Septuagint to see in what sense it was used by the Jews. We have found that the Greeks used it to signify a select or called assembly: perhaps we may admit that they sometimes used it to designate any kind of an assembly. So in those places where the Jews employed it in their Septuagint, we find the same sense: Deut. xviii. 16, ‘In the day of the assembly,’ and Ps. xxii. 22, ‘In the midst of the congregation.’ We must consequently bring this sense with us when we come to the New Testament. The ekklesia of Christ is the select and called assembly, or, at least, it is the assembly of Christ—that assembly which was authorized and organized by him for certain purposes, which he has specifically set forth in his instructions to his people of whom it should be composed. Christ found the word with its meaning already fixed. The meaning was suited to his purpose, and he therefore took it and appropriated it to his institution. By the appropriation it did not lose its original signification: its meaning was not changed. It was because it had that very meaning that Christ selected it and applied it to his organization. It meant an assembly before he appropriated it, and it meant an assembly afterwards; but then it was a peculiar assembly—it was his assembly—the assembly of Christ and of God; and now after it was thus applied—after it had been thus appropriated by Christ, it would, when used by him, or in reference to his kingdom, have this new and appropriated meaning. The ekklesia would be the sacred assembly of Jesus Christ: it would be no common convocation, but only that official assembly which was convened by his authority, organized according to his plan, for such objects as he had designated, and transacting business in his name. That he did authorize and organize a religious institution, (either by himself or the apostles,) that he gave to it a constitution and laws, that he charged it with the duty of making known his gospel, that he left to it the administration of his ordinances and the execution of his laws, is universally admitted. This institution he called his ekklesia—his Church. You ask me what this institution was—of what did it consist? How can I answer your question so clearly, so easily, and so satisfactorily as to point you to the institution itself as it actually existed after it had been organized and was in the full tide of successful operation under the very eyes of those whom he had personally instructed and divinely inspired to superintend its workings. I carry you to Jerusalem. I show you the institution as there exemplified and illustrated by the actual organization. I introduce you into ‘the Church’ as it was first established in the city where Christ was crucified, and from the suburbs of which he ascended to glory. The apostles and the elders whom he had instructed with his own mouth are members of it; and upon them there he first sends down his Holy Spirit to bring to their remembrance all that he has taught them. This organization was his ekklesia This was of necessity the visible embodiment of his idea. This must have been just what he meant and all that he meant by his ekklesia. Christ in his lifetime had more than once spoken of his Church; and when this body was fairly organized, Luke, speaking by inspiration, says it was the Church.
“Now, if this Church had, under the direction of Christ or his apostles, spread itself out and embraced within its limits other local organizations or religious societies, and made them subordinate to and dependent upon itself, we must have recognized Christ’s ekklesia as some great central establishment like the Church of Rome, holding the multitude of the local congregations in a state of dependence and subjection. If this Church, under the direction of Christ or the apostles, had included within its jurisdiction all the Christians in Judea, we might have regarded the ekklesia of Christ as a national establishment. If it had subjected itself to the control of any other or to all the other local organizations in such a way as to secure mutual dependence, and a subordination of one to the whole, or to a majority of the whole, we might have fancied that the Church of Christ consisted of all the local societies thus mutually subordinated. But we find nothing of the kind. This Church never subjected any other to itself, and never subjected itself to any other. It never included any other within its limits, nor became included in the limits of any other. It was ‘the Church which was at Jerusalem,’ and nothing more or less. It never became the Church of Judea. But it was surrounded by ‘the Churches which were in Judea,’ each of them as independent, each of them as much a Church, as it was itself. It stood isolated and independent, acknowledging subjection to none but Christ, as he had spoken in his word, or might speak through his Spirit. When other Churches were formed at Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, and Colosse, each of them was as independent and complete within itself as this one was. This was the model after which they all were fashioned. What, then, do we find the Church of Christ actually to have been? Simply a local assembly of baptized believers, meeting by his authority to administer his ordinances, and transact the business of his kingdom in his name. This we have ascertained, not from any chance allusions, not from any dark and metaphorical expressions. We have not been left to infer it from some figure of speech, but have seen it as an actual and working existence. And now, I say, what has been thus settled by facts cannot be _un_settled by fancies. And so even if we should find some faint allusion, or some metaphorical expression which seems to refer to something else than this, and altogether different from this as though it were the ekklesia of Christ, we shall not abandon the open sunlight and the solid ground of inspired and undisputed historical facts, to follow off some ignis fatuus into the quagmires of metaphors, and similes, and figures of speech. I say, there was no such thing intended by Christ as a provincial Church, or a national Church, or a Church universal, simply because I cannot find any history of such a Church in the Bible. I read of ‘the Churches of Judea,’ and of ‘the Churches of Galilee,’ and of ‘the Churches of Samaria,’ and of ‘the Churches of Galatia,’ and of ‘the Churches of Asia,’ but not one word about the establishment which embraced them all, or any number of them all. I say, therefore, that no such establishment existed. If anybody says it did, it devolves on him to prove it, and that not from tradition—(we all know tradition is a gray-headed liar; and for myself, I won’t believe a word he says, unless sustained by other testimony)—let him prove it from this book, which we all agree contains all that is needful for our religious faith and practice. I will be guided by and governed by the Bible. I am willing to take the Bible, and the whole Bible, with every word truly and fairly translated; but I will have nothing but the Bible. Christ is my only lawgiver in religion; and what law he did not make I am under no religious obligation to obey.”
“But, Mr. Courtney,” said the strange lady, “let me ask you if the advocates of provincial, and national, and other associated Churches do not present some texts of Scripture on which they rest their claim. I have heard so often of the Holy Catholic Church, Church militant and the Church triumphant, of the Church on earth and the Church in glory, of the ancient Church, of the apostolic Church, and of the Church universal, that I am sure there must be some Scripture for such phrases.”
“You have heard many things for Scripture, madam, which nobody can find in the Bible. Not one of these phrases is there. They are all mere human fancies—very pretty, and in a certain sense sufficiently true; but in the strict and literal Bible sense to the word ‘Church,’ there is no such thing as a Church, except it be a simple local assembly or congregation of believers, organized according to Christ’s requirements, and for the specific purposes which he intended. The Church of Christ is simply the visible judiciary and executive in his visible kingdom.”
“But you don’t deny that there is such a thing as the Church invisible, as well as the Church visible.”
“You can conceive, madam, of a great ideal invisible REPUBLIC embracing all those who in every age and country have hated kings and kingcraft, and have longed for freedom. It is not a thing that exists. It never has existed. Yet you can think about it; you can talk about it; orators can make speeches about it; poets can write songs about it; and it might come to occupy a place in our minds and in our language, as though it were an actual reality. So I can conceive of an invisible ‘assembly’ of Jesus Christ, comprising all who in their hearts have loved him, and obeyed him in their lives, so far as they could understand his will. We can talk of such an assembly, and sing what a glorious and happy convocation it would be, but here upon the earth no such assembly has ever existed, or ever will exist. What may take place in heaven is another matter. Our friend, the Doctor, is looking for the Church of Christ on earth. He wants to join it. And this Church is a visible assembly. Our question is, whether it is a local independent assembly, containing within itself all that is requisite to constitute it a complete Church of Jesus Christ, or whether it is a part of some great visible organization to which it is subordinate and accountable. If it be a local independent body, then it must follow, of course, that those extensive combinations which are called Churches, such as the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church, and the like, are not and cannot be Churches of Jesus Christ; for they are not such local and independent organizations, but vast combinations of mutually dependent and subordinate societies. I say the Church of Christ is not any such combination, whether that combination includes a part, or whether it includes the whole of the professed disciples of Christ that are in any country, or that are in all the world, because the Church as we find it in this book was not a combination of any Churches, either more or less, but each Church was complete in itself, and independent of all others.”
“I know very well,” said Mr. Percy, “that no partial combinations are recognized as Churches in the Word; that there is, for instance, no such thing as the union of all the religious societies in any country, or province, or empire; nor any union of all holding a particular set of doctrines, as the Methodist or Presbyterian Churches; but is it equally certain that there is no such union spoken of as existing between all the Churches, and binding them into one great UNIVERSAL CHURCH! I had regarded it as a fact conceded by all the authorities that there was such a Church, commonly called the ‘Church universal.’”
“I recognize no authorities,” said Mr. Courtney, “but the writers of the New Testament, and I know of no place where they have conceded any thing of the kind. It may be that there are some metaphorical allusions to such an imaginary or ideal Church. As the believers in any one place assemble and constitute an actual and visible Church, so we can well conceive of all the believers in the world as though they were assembled in one immense congregation, and might very properly call this ideal assembly the universal Church; but though we can conceive of it, and speak of it thus, no such universal assembly exists, or has existed, or ever will exist upon the earth. So that however numerous and plain such allusions might be, they could have no possible bearing upon the actual organization of the real and visible Church. That is no universal Church. It cannot be. Let us for a moment suppose this universal Church to be an actual existence. It is. Where is it? What is it? If it exist at all, it is the Church of Rome. She is the only body that claims to be in herself the Holy Catholic or universal Church, and to include, within herself alone, all the redeemed. The Church of England makes no such claim outside her queen’s dominions. The Methodist Church North or the Methodist Church South makes no such claim. The Presbyterian Old School or New School makes no such claim. They only plead that they are parts of it, branches of it. But where and what is the whole? As I said before, it is something which can be conceived of, can be talked about, and quarrelled over, but it has only an ideal, that is, an imaginary existence. As a real and actual visible organization, there is not now, and since the disciples were scattered from Jerusalem, and went everywhere preaching the word and founding Churches in every place, there never has been any thing of the sort; and if we suppose any passages of Scripture to refer to any such thing, we must suppose them to refer to a nonentity.”
“But why not let us have the passages at once, that we may judge for ourselves?” asked the Doctor.
“Certainly, sir, I ask pardon, I know I have talked too long. Mr. Percy seems to think that he can find this Church universal: perhaps he will do us the kindness to point us to the texts which he thinks teach its existence.”
“I acknowledge, sir,” said Mr. Percy, “that I have not investigated this point. I had taken it for granted. I was not aware that anybody questioned it. But suppose we turn to Matthew xvi. 18: ‘On this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’”
“This is the first place,” said Mr. Courtney, “in which the word ekklesia occurs in the New Testament. The question before us is, What did Christ mean by it? What was it that he said he would build? How can we ascertain?”
“Very easily, I should think,” said Theodosia; “we have only to look when he had done it, and see what he did build. That we have done already, in almost a hundred of the different places where it is referred to, and have found it invariably to mean a local and independent assembly.”
“It does not seem so easy to me,” returned Mr. Percy, “for there are to my mind at least two very serious difficulties in the way of that interpretation. One is, that Christ uses the term my Church in such a general way that it can hardly be limited to any particular individual body. He does not say, I will build my Churches each one by itself, but my Church in general. The other is, that this Church, whatever it might be, was to be perpetual. The gates of hell should not prevail against it. But this could not be true of any one local organization. They are continually falling. The first Churches have long ago vanished from the earth, and Satan has reigned with undisputed sway in the very cities where the apostles themselves were instruments to build them. Christ must, therefore, have designed to speak of some more extensive and more permanent organization.”
“Very good,” replied Mr. Courtney, “I love to meet objections, and will examine your last one first. You say that this Church must have been a perpetual organization, since the gates of hell should not prevail against it. But no local organization has been perpetual; therefore, it could not have been any local organization, but something more permanent, that Christ intended. Your logic is good, and you have, of course, some knowledge of the more permanent organization to which he must have referred. Can you tell we what it was? It was a visible organization founded by Christ, and which has continued to the present time. It is not the Methodist Church, for that was founded by John Wesley. It is not the Presbyterian, for that was founded by John Calvin. It was not the modern English, for that began with King Henry the Eighth. It was not the Roman Catholic, for that is Antichrist.”
“Of course,” replied Mr. Percy, “no Baptist pretends that it was any of these. It was the ‘Church universal.’ It consisted of all the true Churches of Christ, viewed collectively as one great united organization.”
“If the thing you are speaking of, Mr. Percy, was a mere ideal organization, something conceivable, but not existing as a reality, we have nothing to do with it; but if you mean that there was an actual and visible organization established by Christ, and which included in one Church all the members of all his Churches, you can doubtless produce some record of its sayings or doings. We have very particular accounts of the acts of the Church at Jerusalem, and of that at Antioch, and of some others, and surely we must have some history of this general Church. When did it meet? What were its powers? What business came before it? We have searched carefully, and have found nothing of it. It surely did not exist in the lifetime of the apostles. The Churches which they founded continued separate and independent. They were never amalgamated into one great central organization; or if they were, not only has the organization been destroyed, but even the record of it has perished.”
“I confess, sir, that I had no very clear conception in my mind as to what it was that the Saviour said he would build, and since he did not build any universal visible Church, I suppose it must have been his invisible Church that he referred to.”
“But the language will hardly apply to any thing invisible and ideal. A building is a visible and tangible object, and the reference must have been to some actual and visible organization.”
“How, then, do you get round the difficulty, Mr. Courtney?”
“I don’t go round it at all. I simply set it out of my way, thus: Christ did not refer to any particular individual local organization when he said ‘my Church.’ He did not mean the Church at Jerusalem or the Church at Corinth. Much less did he refer to all the Churches combined in one great Church. But he simply used the word as the name of his institution. And what that institution was we have already seen.”
“I am not sure that I quite understand you.”
“Then, let me illustrate. You are a lawyer. A client comes to you for legal information. You tell him that the law is thus or so; and so ‘the court’ will instruct ‘the jury.’ What do you mean by the court? and what do you mean by the jury? Not any particular individual judge whom you may have in mind, much less all the judges in the world comprised in one gigantic ‘universal’ judge; but you mean any one of all the judges before whom the suit might be tried; and not any particular set of jurymen, much less all the jurymen in the world united in one vast conglomerate ‘universal’ jury; but simply that jury, whichever or wherever it may be, who may chance to be empanelled on the case. ‘The court’ is the name or title given to a certain official personage, when engaged in the performance of certain official duties. ‘The jury’ is the name or title given to a certain official body or assembly, when employed in a certain official capacity. Now, as the courts and juries in the British empire transact business and administer justice by the authority of Queen Victoria, and in her name, they may very properly be called her court, and her jury, meaning thereby simply her institutions, organized by her authority for the transaction of this specific business, In her name. The first courts and juries which were organized may have been dissolved; others may have followed, and, like them, have disappeared; but still the institution continues: the jury is still an essential part of the apparatus for the administration of justice. A thousand juries are every year empanelled and dismissed, but still the jury (using the word as the name of the institution) is perpetual. It has continued since the right of trial by a jury of their equals was first conceded to his subjects by the reluctant king, It will continue so long as the constitution of the English or the American government shall endure. And if I should say that the jury is ‘built’ upon the ‘rock’ of the constitution, and that the councils of tyrants can never ‘prevail against’ or overthrow it, I should speak of it just as Christ did about his Church; but you would not, in that case, insist that the jury must be something much more extensive and permanent than the little company or assembly of twelve chosen men, properly qualified and authorized to transact certain specific business, which everybody knows the jury to be.
“So, you see, Mr. Percy, both your difficulties are removed by the same process.”
“I give it up, sir. But if it will not at all divert us from our object, I would like to hear Mr. Courtney’s exposition of this whole passage. I know that it has given rise to much diversity of opinion; and my own mind is not quite settled in regard to it. I am now perfectly satisfied about what is meant by the Church; but what was the rock on which Christ said that he would build it? Was that rock Peter? or was it Christ? or was it something Peter had said?”
“If wise men had not disagreed about it,” replied Mr. Courtney, “I am sure I should never have felt that there was any mystery in the text. To me it has always seemed as plain and easy to comprehend as any other figurative language.
“Christ had been asking his apostles what was said about him in the world. ‘Whom do men say that I am?’ They answered, ‘Some say John the Baptist, some Elias, some Jeremias, or one of the prophets.’ ‘But what,’ said he, ‘is your opinion? Whom do you say that I am?’ Peter, with his characteristic promptness, answered for them all: ‘Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.’ This was what they believed. This was the confession of their faith. They held him to be Messiah. They believed he came from God. They took him for their Lord. They trusted in him as He who should redeem Israel.
“Jesus replies, that such faith has come from God alone. Blessed, or happy, art thou, Simon, son of Jonas; for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee; but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say likewise unto thee thou art called ‘petros,’ (the masculine form of the Greek word signifying rock,) and then, (changing the gender to that form in which signified a literal rock,) on this ‘petra’ I will erect or build ‘my ekklesia.’ This faith in me, as the Messiah, the Son of God, shall be the basis of my institution called ‘the Church.’ The comparison seems to have been suggested by Peter’s name. Your name is Rock; and as rocks are used for the foundation of buildings, so on this metaphorical, or figurative rock, he would, metaphorically speaking, erect his building. If he had meant that he would build it on Peter himself, he would not have changed the gender of the word. Peter as an individual man, was petros, and not petra, but it was on this petra that he was about to build.
“But now, let us see more particularly wherein the force of the comparison consists. In what particular way did this confession of Peter’s bear the same relation to Christ’s ekklesia that the foundation does to the building? Simply thus: the foundation of a building is first laid down, and the superstructure is then reared upon it. The foundation is the necessary prerequisite for a permanent edifice. So this confession, this profession of faith in Christ, as the Messiah of God, was to be an essential prerequisite to the organization of his Church. This faith in Christ lies at the base of this metaphorical building. The Church consists of individuals; but before these individuals can be erected into a Church, the foundation must be laid by a profession on their part of faith in Christ. The Church erected on this basis will stand for ever. On any other it will be like the house which a man built on the sand: the winds and storms of adversity and persecution and temptation will soon cause its utter overthrow. Christ says to every one who seeks to be built into this holy temple, as Philip to the Ethiopian officer, ‘If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest.’ No other condition will suffice. And just as the jury, which, if not composed of persons properly qualified and duly sworn, is no jury in law or in fact, though it may be in appearance and in name; so that Church which consists of those who have not in form or in fact made a personal confession of faith in Christ, is not a real Church of Christ. It may be one in appearance and in name, but it is not built upon this rock; and according to the constitution and laws of his kingdom, it is not a legal Church, and has no authority to transact his business.”
“If I do not mistake,” said Theodosia, “this comparison of the Church to a building is not uncommon in the Scriptures. I have an indistinct remembrance of having seen it in several other places.”
“Certainly, madam. It is employed several times by Paul,” replied Mr. Courtney, “and that in such a connection as to remove every shadow of a doubt, if we have one remaining, as to its applicability to a local Church. To the Church at Corinth he declares, (1 Cor. iii. 9,) ‘Ye are God’s building.’ To the Ephesians he says, (Eph. iii. 23,) ‘In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation [not the habitation] of God through the Spirit.’ To the Colossians he says, (Col. ii 6, 7,) ‘As ye have received Christ Jesus, the Lord, so walk ye in him, rooted [founded] and built up in him, and established in the faith that ye have been taught.’ So, (Jude 20,) ‘But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith,’ etc.
“What we learn from this text, then, is simply this: Christ was about to set up an institution which should be called ‘his ekklesia,’ or his assembly, now commonly in English called ‘his Church.’ But this Church could not be built before its foundation had been laid in an open profession of faith in him as the Messiah of God. His ekklesia should rest upon this basis. Its members must be believers in Christ. This is the necessary and indispensable prerequisite; and that institution which he erected on this foundation shall never be overthrown. It is an institution of Christ. He calls it ‘my ekklesia.’ It rests on the rock of faith, and not on external forms. It, therefore, consists of believers, and not of believers and their baptized children. It is a perpetual institution, and has continued from the time that he established it till now, and will continue till he comes again. ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ It can, therefore, never become apostate, and needs never to be reformed; for it will ever continue in its pristine purity and simplicity. Just such an institution now exists; and I trust before we have travelled many days longer in search of it, we may come upon it.
“But, now, lest you may have some lingering doubt whether this Church, which Christ and Paul so beautifully compare to a building, may not after all be some vast centralization of ecclesiastical authority—some multitude in one—something, the parts of which were ‘Churches,’ and the whole combined ‘the Church’—let us spend a few minutes on the next place, which is, indeed, the only other place in which Christ used the word. That will dissolve the last remaining shadow of uncertainty.”
“I am sure,” said Mr. Percy, “I do not see how the case can well be made any plainer than it appears to me already. The momentary doubts which came up in my mind arose from the fact that I did not look at the term ‘the Church’ as the general title or name of the Christian institution, but was trying to apply it to some individual example of the institution. With your explanation the difficulty vanished. I only wonder that I could not see the truth as easily us my wife, before it was pointed out to me.”
“You know, my dear,” said she, “that we ladies have a way of jumping at our conclusions, while you gentlemen must take time to reason up to the same point. We get there first; but you have this advantage, that you can look back and see the road you came, while we only know that we are there. But now, since Mr. Courtney and you have discovered the principle on which the text is to be interpreted, I have thought of another illustration of it.”
“Pray madam,” said the Doctor, “do let us have it, for I confess these views of the Church are so new to me, and so different from all my preconceptions, that I am somewhat bewildered, and need all the light which can be thrown on the subject.”
“The principle,” said she, “is the same as that on which the name of an individual is every day applied to the species, genus, or family, to which it belongs. As when we say of the oak that it is the most majestic of forest trees, we do not mean any one oak, nor do we mean all the oaks in the world comprised in one ‘universal’ oak. Each oak is still a separate and individual tree; but we apply the name of the individual to all the species—not considered collectively, as one great oak, but separately, as hundreds and thousands of trees, each having the same name. But I don’t know whether I am making myself understood: perhaps the example will do it better than my explanation. When God tells Job to look at his behemoth, or at his leviathan, which he had made, he does not mean any particular individual behemoth or leviathan. What he says of them is characteristic of each individual, and so applies to all the race of these mighty monsters of the land and of the sea.”
“Or, to take a more familiar example, Theo.,” said Mr Percy, “when he directs his attention to the horse rushing to the battle, he does not mean any particular individual war horse, but includes all that class of horses to which his description will apply; and we are accustomed every day to use the word horse in common conversation just as the word church is employed in the text we have been discussing. We speak of a horse, referring to any individual specimen of the race, as Paul talks of every church; of the horse, meaning thereby some particular individual horse, as he speaks of the Church at Jerusalem, and the like. Of the horses, meaning those on some plantation, or in some State, as he talks of the Churches of Judea, of Galatia, and of Asia; and we every day speak of the horse as the most desirable of domestic animals; of the docility of the horse; of the speed of the horse, and the like, just as Jesus here, and Paul elsewhere, speaks of the Church as founded on a rock; as bought with his blood; as the body of Christ, who is its head; and, as we do not mean by the term ‘the horse,’ when used in this generic or representative sense, all the horses in the world combined in one vast horse, visible or invisible, no more do we mean by the term ‘the Church,’ when employed in this representative or generic sense, all the Churches in the world, combined in one great visible or invisible Church. Now, my illustration, if not so beautiful as Mrs. Percy’s tree, or so sublime as her behemoth, has at least this recommendation, that it is perfectly familiar.”
“Indeed, sir,” said the Doctor, “it is very striking and convincing, though it must be admitted that it is not very poetical. And, for my own part, I am ready, Mr Courtney to go on to the other text you spoke of.”
“I had almost forgotten what we were about to do; and thank you for calling it to my mind. I said, or might have said, that Christ, so far as we have any record of the fact, personally employed this word but twice: once as we have seen, and the next time, shortly afterwards, in the next chapter but one. In this, he designates one of the objects for which the Church was constituted. If Mrs. Percy will turn to Matt. xviii., and begin at the 15th verse, she may read us the passage.”
“Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother; but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church; but if he shall neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”
“We learned from the other passage,” said Mr. Courtney, “that Christ himself would organize the Church, and that it should consist only of believers upon him as the Messias of God; but we had no intimation of the objects which this Church was intended to accomplish, or of the manner in which its business was to be brought before it. In this one, however, a flood of light is poured upon these points. One object, at least, was to secure peace and harmony among the brethren, and the purity of its own membership.
“This text contains the fundamental law of Church discipline. This is the process to be observed in case of disagreement between Church members. The brother who feels himself aggrieved, must first go to the offender and try the effect of a personal interview. If this should fail, he must take one or two brethren, and talk the matter over in their presence, and try what effect may be produced by their suggestions. If this also should fail, he must not let the wound continue to fester and the sore to spread. He must not get out into the world and proclaim his brother’s faults, or make known his own complaints. He must tell it to the Church; and if he will not hear the Church, then he is no longer bound to treat him as a Christian brother. Here the matter ends. When the Church has decided, the question is settled. There is no appeal. There is no higher authority to whom he can go. The Church is supreme. Its decision is final. It cannot be reversed by any authority but its own. Christ is King, and the Church is the executive in his dominion. What the Church does, even though it consist of but two or three gathered in his name, asking wisdom from him, and guided strictly by his laws, he says (verses 18–20) that he will sanction, for he will be invisibly present in their midst.
“Now, let us bring our question, ‘What is the Church?’ to this text for an answer.
“I think, Doctor, you do not now consider yourself a member of Christ’s visible Church at all. But our Methodist friend thinks you would be one if you should unite with any one of those religious societies which are commonly called Churches. Let us suppose that you had united with his society, and that you and he should have a disagreement in which you felt yourself aggrieved. You have gone to him and talked the matter over, but in vain. You have taken with you one or two more, and tried to reconcile the quarrel through their mediation, but could not succeed; and now, you, as a subject of Christ’s kingdom and bound by his law, feel that you have only one more thing that you can do: you are not at liberty to go before the civil courts; you must not tell it to the world; nor are you at liberty to leave the matter undecided, and so perpetuate a quarrel between two members of Christ’s body. The law of the King is plain and imperative: you must tell it to the Church. This you are ready to do; but now, where is your Church? Whom shall you tell? Who is to decide for you? The Church. But what is the Church? Is it the class-leader? No. Is it the class? No. Is it the minister in charge? No. Is it the Quarterly Conference? No. Is it the General Conference? No.”
“Of course not,” interrupted the Methodist. “The Methodist Church consists of all those persons who have passed their six months’ probation, and have been recommended by the class-leader, and received by the minister in charge into full membership. No one, I trust, is so simple as to imagine that we regard the class, or the minister, or the Conference, as the Church of Christ.”
“Very good,” said Mr. Courtney. “Your Methodist Church consists of all who have passed their probation in class, and been admitted to full membership. Could Dr. Thinkwell tell his trouble to them? He could not even tell it to the Methodist Church, South; and if he could, that would not be the Methodist Church, for that must include also the Methodist Church, North; and these would only be the American portion of it. To tell it to the Methodist Episcopal Church, he must raise his voice so as to be heard from Maine to Florida, and from New York to California. Nay, he must lift it above the roar of the ocean, and shriek his complaints across the broad Atlantic, or fail to ‘tell it to the Church,’ as Christ commanded him.
“If he had been an Episcopalian, or a Presbyterian, or had connected himself with any other of the great religious combinations or ecclesiastical establishments which are commonly called Churches, he would have the same difficulty. If these vast establishments are the Church, he cannot tell the Church—he cannot make it hear him. And if we suppose the Church to be that universal something which we were speaking of, the difficulty is so much the greater; for then, when he has told his trouble to the Methodist Church, or the Episcopal Church, or the Presbyterian Church, or the Lutheran Church, he has only told it to a branch, and not to the Church itself.”
“Excuse me, sir,” replied the Methodist, “if I say that this sounds to me like the merest twaddle, since you can hardly be ignorant that we all regard the word church as having two distinct meanings. In one sense, it means all those who profess the true religion—the whole vast body of believers in Christ. In the other sense, it is used to designate a single local society or congregation of believers. In the passage before us it has this limited sense. ‘It was,’ as the learned Bloomfield says in his note on the place, ‘to that congregation to which they both belonged that the offended brother was to tell his grievance.’”
“I am perfectly aware,” replied Mr Courtney, “that the word church in common usage has not only two but half a dozen meanings; but I say, that in the New Testament, as a religious and appropriated term, it has but one. ‘The Church of God and of Christ’ was one thing, and no more. When this institution is spoken of, it is that one thing which is intended. It was this which Jesus said he would build. It was this against which the gates of hell should not prevail. It was this to which the brother should relate his grievance. And this was the local assembly of Christian people organized according to Christ’s instructions. Bloomfield was right. It was to the local organization, ‘that congregation to which they both belonged,’ that the offended brother was to tell his grievance. In this we perfectly agree. And now mark me: If this was the body which Christ meant, I will show you that those establishments which people call the Presbyterian Church, and the Episcopal Church, and the Methodist Church, ARE OPEN AND SYSTEMATIC REBELS AGAINST THE LAW OF CHRIST. They have nullified and set aside HIS law of discipline, and substituted their own inventions.”
“Those are very hard words, sir, and should have been well weighed before you uttered them. It is no trifling matter to bring such a charge against the great mass of Christ’s professing people; and, sir, God will hold you responsible for such harsh and unfounded accusations against his dear people.”
The preacher evidently felt all the indignation which he expressed as much by his voice and countenance as in his words; and the scattered company, which had been engaged in reading, or talking, or lounging listlessly upon the sofas, attracted by the peculiar tone of the excited speaker, all turned their faces towards the table around which the discussion was going on; and several left their seats, and came and stood where they could see Mr. Courtney’s face as he very quietly replied:
“I have not been accustomed, in discussions upon the subject of religion, to make assertions which I was not prepared fully to sustain. If I do not show you that in this matter these so-called Churches have rebelled against Christ, set aside and nullified his law, and substituted regulations of their own in its place, then you may give vent to all the indignation which you think you ought to feel towards a slanderer of your brethren.”
“But, sir,” exclaimed the unknown lady, “if we are rebels against Christ, we cannot be Christians. If these Churches are living in open, systematic, and avowed disregard of his laws, they cannot be his people. And yet I am sure that even you, badly as you seem to think of everybody but your own company, will not deny that there is as much piety and devotion to the interests of religion in these Churches as even among the Baptists themselves.”
“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.”