VOLUME II.:

OR, TEN DAYS’ TRAVEL IN SEARCH OF THE CHURCH.

Nashville, Tenn.: Baptist Publishing House. S. C. Rogers, 59 North Market St. 1866.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866, by R. B. Davidson, In the District Court of the United States, for the Middle District of Tennessee.

CONTENTS

First Day’s Travel.

The converted infidel—The authority of the Scriptures—The object of our investigation—Is the Church one, or many?—Has the Church any branches—Difficulties increasing—A mystery developed. Pages 11⁠–⁠25

Second Day’s Travel.

The meaning of certain words and phrases used in Scripture to designate the institutions set up by Christ, such as the kingdom of God, etc., examined and settled—Mr. Percy’s call to the ministry. 26⁠–⁠67

Third Day’s Travel.

The difference between the Kingdom and the Church, and some other remarkable things concerning the Church brought to light—No Church universal. 68⁠–⁠130

Fourth Day’s Travel.

In which we come upon some marks by which to know a true Church of Christ, whenever and wherever we may find it. 131⁠–⁠165

Fifth Day’s Travel.

More marks of a true Church found—The tablet of marks completed. 166⁠–⁠182

Sixth Day’s Travel.

The Church of Rome tried by the marks or Scripture tests—Introduction of episcopacy—Episcopacy unscriptural—Rome apostate, and the consequences to Protestants. 183⁠–⁠256

Seventh Day’s Travel.

Digression on the introduction of Infant Baptism—The trial of the Church of England begun. 258⁠–⁠288

Eighth Day’s Travel.

The trial of the Church of England completed—The trial of the Methodist Episcopal Church begun. 288⁠⁠–⁠⁠314

Ninth Day’s Travel.

The trial of the Methodist Episcopal Church continued and concluded— Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Congregational Churches tried. 314⁠–⁠444

Tenth Day’s Travel.

In which the Church is found and identified. 444⁠–⁠485

INTRODUCTION.

OUR blessed Saviour, when he was upon the earth knowing how very difficult it is to engage the attention and open the heart to the reception of religious truth, when presented abstractly, and in a didactic manner, was accustomed to connect his enunciation of the most important doctrines with a _narrative_ suited to illustrate and enforce the teachings, while it gained the attention and secured the reception of his doctrine. We have every reason to believe that these narratives were most of them _fictitious_. The persons introduced did not actually exist, and the incidents related had not really occurred. He was pleased to _invent_ the narrative, to _suppose_ the events to have happened, in order that he might by them illustrate and enforce the great lessons which he came to teach. We do not imagine that there was really “A certain rich man who had two sons,” to whom it happened as he related in that most beautiful parable of the Prodigal Son. We do not suppose that he had in his mind any particular person whom he called the “Unjust judge, who feared not God nor regarded man,” and yet was moved by the poor widow’s “importunity” to do her justice. His hearers understood perfectly well that these were _fictitious_ narratives, employed to _gain attention_ to a real truth. _Such fiction is no falsehood._ It is not intended to deceive, and it does not deceive. Its object is accomplished when it has won the attention to the _truth_ of which it is made the vehicle.

What the prophets often did, and what Jesus habitually did, has been done by good men in every age. They have _invented narratives_, sometimes brief, and designed to enforce and illustrate a single thought, and sometimes continued and connected, in order to convey a system of doctrine or a series of truths. Those are fables, or parables, poems or allegories, or simple stories, as may best suit the objects which the speaker or writer has in view. If Bunyan had merely told in plain, didactic language, the fears, the hindrances, the doubts, the sorrows, the hopes and labors and final triumphs of the Christian, he would have taught just what his Pilgrim’s Progress was designed to teach; but he would not have taught it so effectually, nor indeed _so truthfully_, as he has done by means of his inimitable work of fiction, in which the truth is not only _told_ to the ear, but _shown_, as it were, to the _eye_ of the mind, acting itself out in its natural and necessary results.

The numerous writers who have labored so sedulously and so successfully to make religious truth attractive and familiar to the minds of children and young people, and whose works constitute the bulk of our Sunday-school libraries, have not neglected to employ the _narrative_ as the _chief_ means of gaining attention and reaching the heart. And just so fax as such narratives are fitted and designed, _not merely to_ _interest the reader, not merely to excite his sympathy of arouse his feelings_, but to convey important information, to teach some practical lesson in morals or religion, to illustrate or enforce some great religious truth, so far they have the sanction of the example of the best of men in other days, and even of the Lord himself.

And what if it be true that wicked men have made fiction the instrument of most terrific evil? What if they have used it to pander to the vilest passions of depraved humanity? What if they have employed it as the vehicle of false philosophy and false religion? What if they have prostituted it to minister to a morbid and mawkish sensibility? What if they have flooded the land with the filthy outpourings of the vilest and most loathsome stews of profligacy and impiety? What if the infidel has seized on it and wielded it as his most powerful weapon against Christianity? Shall we leave it to the exclusive possession of the enemies of God and man? True, they have degraded and polluted it, but it is still a weapon of tremendous power. We will wrest it from their grasp. We will sanctify, by consecrating it to God and souls. We will increase its energies by earnest prayer for Heaven’s blessing. And we will turn it against vice and infidelity. We will use it against error. We will make it the exponent and defender of the truth as it is in Jesus. Why should we not? Do we hesitate to make poetry the medium of truth, because the vicious and the dissolute have sometimes stolen her beautiful garments to cover up the most licentious conceptions of the veriest profligates that have ever been blessed with intellect? Do we cast aside our sacred songs because the lyre has been degraded, and made to sing what modesty would not dare to speak in simple prose? No such thing. If others deface her beauty, misconceive her purpose, and misapply her power, we will weep over the perversion of so glorious a gift, but we will not refuse to employ the mighty energies of poetry and song in the soul-elevating work for which they were intended. Nor will we, for a similar cause, abandon to the vicious the exclusive use of the fictitious narrative. _We cannot conscientiously refuse to employ a weapon at once so effective and so necessary to the present condition of the reading world._

In the first volume of Theodosia Ernest, we have endeavored to make it the medium of instruction to a class of minds which would, we thought, be more easily reached by this than any other means in regard to certain subjects which we consider as of vast importance to the true interests of the religion of Jesus. We intended, when we began that work, to condense to a single volume such arguments and facts as should appear to us essential to the right understanding of the main points of difference between the Baptists and other denominations of Christian people. But we found that we could not do justice to the argument, and bring it all into the compass of a single volume. We were therefore obliged, contrary to our wishes and our first intentions, to continue the discussion into the present volume.

In the first, we confined our investigations to those topics which are embraced in what is commonly called the “baptismal controversy,” _to wit_, the _act_ of baptism, the subjects of baptism, and _communion_. We did not say all we desired to say, nor all that we intend to say, upon these subjects; but we have been assured, by those whose opinions we value more than our own, that on each of these points the argument is satisfactory and _unanswerable_. If there is in the manner of presenting it any thing _unkind or disrespectful_ to those who have conscientiously come to different conclusions from the author and his brethren, we sincerely regret it. We would not willingly grieve any lover of our Saviour, or cause the weakest of his little ones to stumble. If we are not self-deceived, we seek to know, and do, and teach the simple truth as we find it recorded in the Sacred Word; and to do this kindly and tenderly, but yet as one who feels that he must give account if he should “handle the Word of God deceitfully.”

In this volume we have presented the subject of _Church polity_. We are sure that Baptists themselves (we mean the masses, and not the educated few) have very much to learn in regard to the true nature and constitution of a scriptural Church of Jesus Christ. This has been less frequently than baptism the topic of pulpit instruction or newspaper discussion. What has been written upon it has, until recently, been mostly inaccessible to the common people; and much of it, we humbly conceive, has not been suited to give them _entirely_ correct impressions even if they had seen it. We hail, however, with great pleasure, the recent appearance of several most valuable works upon this subject; and if we chance in some things to differ from the authors of these works, or others who have attempted to develop the true idea of the Church of Christ, we trust that our teachings will be tried, _not_ by the common opinion of modern Christians, of ancient Christians, _not_ by the theories or the practice of Pedobaptists, or of Baptists, but simply and solely by the Word of God. To this the author has endeavored to bring every position, and examine it carefully by its sacred light. To this he appeals. By this, and this alone, will he be judged.

NASHVILLE, July 22d, 185

Ten Days’ Travel In Search of the Church.

FIRST DAY’S TRAVEL.

The converted infidel—The authority of the Scriptures—The object of our investigation—Is the Church one or many?—Has the Church any branches?—Difficulties increasing—A mystery developed.

IN the ladies’ cabin of one of those magnificent steamboats which ply upon the Mississippi, was a mixed company, consisting of persons brought together from various portions of our own and other lands. Some lounged lazily on the rich sofas; some walked uneasily up and down the room; some talked apart, in groups of two or three; some read the morning papers, which the obliging clerk had obtained at the last landing; others were intent upon the “latest novel,” or other trashy literature, which may always be procured about the wharf from which a boat is starting. Every thing readable had been seized upon by some one of the passengers, to while away the tedium of the monotonous voyage, with one exception. THE LARGE BIBLE, which some generous-hearted people had presented to the boat, lay unopened upon the centre-table. Seeing this, a gentleman who had been walking up and down in the dining-saloon, came in through the open door, sat down by the table, opened the book with an air of uncommon reverence, and silently read several chapters in succession.

There was something in the appearance and the manners of the man that attracted the special attention of a lady remarkable for the tasteful neatness of her plain apparel, and the extraordinary beauty and expressiveness of her face, who was sitting on the left of the table, engaged in conversation with a matronly personage, who, with quite a patronizing air, was expounding to the newly married pastor’s wife the mystery of making a certain variety of bread.

The Bible reader had, on sitting down, taken his pencil from his pocket, as though it had been his habit to lead with it in his hand; and once he had placed it on the margin of the page, seemingly with the design to make some mark, or note, when, recollecting that it was not _his own_ Bible, he laid it aside. When he had done reading, however, he turned to the fly-leaf opposite the title-page, and wrote slowly and carefully these lines:

The Book of God! let man beware, And note the words with earnest care; Heedful to learn what God will say, And not to cavil, but obey.

After which, he reverently closed the book, and returned to the other cabin. As soon as he was gone, the young lady reached the Bible, and, with true womanly curiosity, hastened to examine the writing. When she had read it, she found her husband, (a noble-looking man in the early prime of life, dressed, like herself, with great simplicity, yet with most perfect taste,) and brought him to look at it; remarking, as he was reading it, “That man is a Christian, my dear, and, it may be, a minister. We must become acquainted with him.”

“That is not unlikely. Show me which he is, and I will get the captain to introduce me to him.”

She pointed him out, and her husband went to seek the wished-for introduction.

“Captain, do you know that tall, dark gentleman yonder?”

“Certainly, sir. That is Dr. Thinkwell, formerly a practitioner of medicine, but now a wealthy planter. His summer residence is not many miles from Nashville. He will make the whole trip with us.”

“Will you have the kindness to make me acquainted with him?”

“Certainly; but you may not find his company so pleasant as you think; though, for that matter, he is a perfect gentleman. But you know you clergymen have your own opinions about some things; and the Doctor is said by some to have very different ones. In fact,” and the captain dropped his voice to a whisper, “he is said to be a Universalist, or an infidel, or something of that sort—I don’t know exactly what.”

“I am all the more anxious to know him, then.”

“Well, I only thought best to put you on your guard. He is coming this way: I will introduce you now.—Dr. Thinkwell, let me make you acquainted with the Rev. Mr. Percy, a young clergyman, who, with his lady, will travel with us as far as Nashville.”

“I am most happy to meet with you, Mr. Percy. There are but few of our present company who will make the whole trip, and I shall enjoy the voyage more for having some acquaintance in the ladies’ cabin.”

“Come with me, then, and let me introduce you to Mrs. Percy.”

They walked to the other apartment, and Mr. Percy introduced him to the lady as Dr. Thinkwell; and, to correct her conjecture that he might be a clergyman, added that he believed he was not a doctor of divinity, but of medicine.

“I had fancied, sir,” said she, “that you must be a minister of the gospel.”

“Why did you think so, Mrs. Percy?”

“From the reverent manner of your reading that book, and the lines you left upon the blank leaf at its beginning.”

“I have good reason, Madam, to love and reverence that book, although I am entirely unfit to become the expounder of its glorious truths. It is true I once despised it. I will not say I hated it: I scarcely thought it worthy of more than quiet contempt. Now I feel that it deserves far more grateful consideration at the hand of all men than it is accustomed to receive even from Christians. I cannot open it but with a sense of amazement at the goodness and the wisdom of the God who gave it.”

“Then you were once an infidel?”

“If by an infidel, Madam, you mean one who does not believe that the book called the Bible was a revelation from the Deity, I was an infidel. But I was also more.”

“Surely you were not an atheist! I have been accustomed to think that no person of ordinary intelligence and a sane mind _could_ be an atheist.”

“If by an atheist you mean one who is fully satisfied that there is no God, I was not one. But if you mean one who very seriously _doubts_ the being of a God; one who believes that there is not in nature, so far as known to us, sufficient and satisfactory proof to show that there is a God; then I was an atheist. He must be a bold man, indeed, who would undertake to say that there is certainly _not_ a God; for although there might be no evidence of God within his sphere of observation; nothing within him, nothing around him, nothing in the earth beneath or in the sky above him to show that God exists, he could not determine that there _might not be such evidence somewhere else_. Unless he had ranged through all the immensity of the universe, and perfectly mastered all the facts which it presents, that one world where he had not been might be the very world where God might be distinctly known; that one fact which he did not know might be the very fact which, if known, would prove the existence of a God. If any man be mad enough to take such ground, you may well call him a fool. He has said in his heart not merely that there is not evidence enough to prove that God is—so leaving his existence in doubt—but plainly and positively that there is no God. Such a man is not properly an atheist, but an anti-theist—not only _without_ God, but _against_ God I was an atheist, but not an anti-theist.”

“Pray, Doctor, sit down and tell us, (that is, if you have no objection to speak of these things,) how it was that you were brought out of this darkness of unbelief into the light of faith.”

“When I was an unbeliever, I did not hesitate to express my doubts, and the reasons why I doubted. I took pleasure in encountering in argument those who were silly enough, as I then considered them, to believe such incredible things as the doctrines of the Christian religion; and why should I now hesitate to avow my faith in God and in his word, and, more than all; in Jesus Christ, my blessed Saviour? I will take pleasure, therefore, in relating to you the process of reasoning by which I have been led to the reception of the truth. But the story is a long one: the arguments are various, and may, to you, seem complicated, and will require our careful and undivided attention. This we can hardly give during our stay upon the boat; but I trust there will be some favorable opportunity before we part.[1] Meantime, let me have some conversation with you upon another subject, in regard to which you are probably better informed than I am, and about which I am just now in a state of distressing uncertainty.

“It is not very long since I was led, in God’s great mercy to take Jesus Christ for my Saviour. In doing so, I took him for my Lord and King. I feel that to him alone I owe allegiance in all matters of religion; and, if I am not self-deceived. I sincerely desire and intend to know and do his will. I am aware that he requires of those who believe in him, that they shall make a public profession of their faith in him, and unite themselves with his visible people. This I should have done ere now, but for a single difficulty, which is not yet removed, and in the removal of which you possibly may aid me.”

“And what is that great difficulty?”

“Simply this: there are so many different organizations, each claiming to be the Church of Christ, that I do not know which to receive and unite with as his.”

“Permit me to suggest,” replied Mr. Percy, “that you have probably not made a careful examination of the subject in the light of the _Scriptures alone_; but have permitted the cross-lights of tradition and of prejudice, or at least of early impressions, to confuse your vision, and so divert your attention from the real object of your search; for, had this not been the case, I do not understand how you could find reason for even a moment’s hesitation.”

“Do you think, then, that the peculiar characteristics of The Visible Church of Christ are so plainly and definitely set forth in the Scriptures, that it is not easy to mistake on this point?”

“Surely they are, my dear sir; so that it is not only easy not to mistake, but, I had almost said, _so that no man of common sense, who will be guided by Scripture alone, casting aside the influence of all human teachings, can possibly mistake_. Why, sir, after the revelation of Christ himself, the great object of the New Testament Scriptures—the very purpose for which they were intended—is, to give the constitution, the laws, and the history of the kingdom which Christ came to establish upon the earth; and it would be strange, indeed, if they have given them in language so ambiguous that no one could understand it, or that any candid inquirer should have any sort of difficulty in knowing what this kingdom in its essential features is.”

“How, then, does it happen, sir, that there exists such a wide diversity of opinion among the good and pious? If the thing is so plainly set forth, why do not all see it, and see it all alike? How is it that we have Episcopalians, and Presbyterians, and Lutherans, and Congregationalists, and Methodists, and I can’t say how many others, all claiming, each for themselves, that they are the true Church of Christ?”

“Excuse me, gentlemen,” said a middle-aged man, who looked up suddenly from the newspaper which he had apparently been reading; “I do not conceive of these various Churches that each claims for itself that it is _the Church_, but only that it is a _branch of the Church of Christ_. I am a minister of the Methodist Connection, and I am sure that, while we claim for ourselves to be a part of the Church of Christ, we do not deny that Episcopalians, provided they are good and pious, and Presbyterians, and Lutherans, and Baptists, and, in fact, all evangelical Christians, are just as much branches of Christ’s Church as we are ourselves.”

“You would remove my difficulty, then,” replied the Doctor, “by showing that it is a matter of no consequence at all with which of these various organizations I shall unite, since all are equally Churches of Christ, and I would obey him equally whether I attach myself to one or to another. Do I understand you rightly?”

“O, of course I think my owe denomination more nearly right than any other, or I would not belong to it; and if I should give you any advice, I would say, sir, by all means unite with the Methodists. But still, we hold that every man should be fully persuaded in his own mind, and that every Christian, therefore, should belong to that connection where he can best enjoy himself.”

“Your suggestion, then, does not quite meet my case. I not seeking to secure my own _enjoyment_, but to obey _Christ’s requirements_. I am willing to deny myself to do his will I only ask to know which (if any) of these various organizations was that which he established, and into which, therefore, he requires me to be incorporated. They are certainly very different in doctrine, different in practice, and different in the character of their membership. They cannot all be right. They cannot be each the Church of Christ, unless Christ established several distinct Churches. They cannot be _branches_ of his Church, unless he established a Church with several different branches. This is self-evident. But if he did, there is, of course, some record of it in this book;” (laying his hand reverently on the Bible;) “and if you will do me the kindness to point it out, I shall certainly avail myself of your suggestion, and unite with that body in which I think I will best enjoy my religion.”

Saying this, he pushed the Bible across the table, so that it lay directly before the stranger, who mechanically opened it, but without looking into it, as he replied, “You would not, of course, expect to find the Methodist, or Episcopal, or Lutheran, or Presbyterian Churches described by name in the Word of God, for none of them existed, or were known by name, in the days when the Scriptures were written; but we hold that it is all-sufficient, _if the essential doctrines and practices of each or any of them can be established by Scripture proof_. If the doctrine and practice of any of them, or all of them, are scriptural, then they are scriptural Churches.”

“But do you not see, my dear sir, that while they _differ_ in doctrine and practice, they _cannot_ be all scriptural, unless the Scriptures teach as many different and opposing systems of doctrine and practice as there are Churches. If any one of them is in accordance with Scripture, it follows, of necessity, that just so far as the others differ from _it_, they differ from the Scripture. There _can_ be only one scriptural Church of Christ, unless Christ founded more than one, and gave them different laws. This, I am sure, needs no proof: it is self evident: And what I ask, and must require, before I can avail myself of your kind suggestion, that I may unite with any one of these organizations, and feel that I am obeying him, is, that you show me some shadow of proof, some faint intimation at least, that his Church was _not_ one and undivided, but that he gave different constitutions, laws, and doctrines to different classes of people, or, at least, that he authorized the _one_ Church to divide itself into what you call branches. So far as my investigations have gone, I find his kingdom spoken of as an undivided kingdom. His people are said to be _one_. There is one fold and one shepherd: there were to be no divisions among them. They were all to speak the same thing. We read, indeed, of different individual Churches, as the Church of the Corinthians, and of the Church of Ephesus, and the like—separate, and distinct, and independent organizations—but they were one in doctrine, one in practice. They all walked, or were required ‘to walk, by the same rule.’ They had all ‘one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism.’ It is thus that I read; but if I read amiss, I will be thankful to him who will show me my error. You say, sir, that these modern sects are _branches_ of the Church: if so, where or which is the main and parent stock planted by Christ and cultivated by the apostles, from which these branches grow? If that is still alive, I will be engrafted into it. If _it_ dead, what keeps alive the branches? If the original stock is so cut up into branches that it cannot be found, show me some scriptural authority for the cutting up, and some command requiring me to add my name to any of them as I may think most proper. I read, indeed, of Christ as the vine, and of _individual Christians_ as branches growing out of him, and living by his life; but nowhere of a parent stock of _churches_, with branches growing out of _it_. Can you point me to any such a passage?”

“Indeed, sir,” replied the preacher, “I do not deny and suppose that no one can deny, that there ought to be general unity among Christians, and that the divisions and dissensions which have separated the professed followers of Christ are greatly to be deplored; but, at the same time, sir, human nature is imperfect: men will not all see alike, and hence there always have been, and always will be, differences of opinion, and, consequently, of practice.”

“Very true, my dear sir, but this does not affect the point about which we are conversing in the slightest degree. The question which I ask is this: What or which is that organization which was established by Christ, and called his Church or kingdom? I feel that it is my duty to join myself to it. You reply that human nature is imperfect, and men will differ from each other, so that some think this and some think that is it. One says, here, in the Roman Catholic hierarchy; another says, there, in the Episcopal; another, in the Lutheran another, in the Presbyterian; and so on, through the catalogue. You have your private opinion that it is in the Methodist Connection, but assure me that any of them will do. Now, to me it seems evident that, although human nature _is_ imperfect, God’s _revelation_ cannot be. In that revelation (it is admitted by all) is revealed and described a visible organization, which was devised and established by Jesus Christ, and is called his Church. Whatever that may be, it is some _one_ thing, and not a dozen different things; for a kingdom divided against itself, said Jesus, cannot stand. It is, what it is there represented to be, just that, and nothing else. It must be still in existence, because he foretold that it should never fail; that the gates of hell should not prevail against it. Now, my object is to find it; and, having found it, to become a part of it.”

“I do not conceive, sir,” said Mr. Percy, “that you will meet with any serious difficulty in making the discovery, when you once begin at the _right place_ and look in the _right direction_.”

“I must have started wrong then, for, up to this time, I confess there is an impenetrable obscurity hangs over the whole subject.”

“Will you permit me to ask,” said Mrs. Percy, “of what denomination were your parents?”

“They belonged to the Church of England, madam.”

“Then you were sprinkled in your infancy.”

“So I have been told. And I remember that, when I was about twelve years old, the bishop put his hands upon my head, and said some words, which they informed me confirmed my baptism, and completed the process of making me a Christian.”

“Then,” said she, “you have some predilections for the organization which you were taught in childhood to regard as the only Church of Christ.”

“It may be so, madam; but I do not think you apprehend the exact nature and extent of the difficulties which embarrass and distress me. My mother was a good and pious Christian. In most things she was right; and I grant that I cannot help feeling a smothered conviction that she must have been right in whatever pertained to her religion. But, at the same time, I am quite ready, upon sufficient evidence, to admit that she was wrong. My parents did not make religion the special study of their lives. They received _their_ religious opinions from others, in their childhood, as _I did mine_, so far as I had any, until recently; they never made them the object of any careful examination, but took it for granted that what ‘the Church’ believed must be the truth. So, if what is called the Church was wrong, they were wrong, of course. But here is the trouble: _I_ have not made religion the study of _my_ life any more than _they_ did; _my_ judgment, therefore, is worth no more than _theirs_. And when I turn to those who _have_ given the labor of their lives to this very thing, I find that they have come to such various and contradictory conclusions, that I am ready to despair of the possibility of ever knowing certainly what is the truth.

“I fix my attention upon one man. I see that he has an intellect superior to my own; that he has piety which I never expect to equal; that he has stores of learning such as I never can obtain. He is honest; he is earnest; he is studious and prayerful. He has spent a long life in the almost exclusive study of this very subject, and he is a Presbyterian. I turn to another, and he is a Methodist; to another of the same class, and he is a Lutheran, a Congregationalist, a Baptist, or possibly, like Fénélon, a Catholic.

“Now, what am I to do? How can I decide who of them all is right? How venture in my ignorance to determine what all the wisdom of pious sages leaves open to dispute?”

“That is just what I said,” replied the Methodist. “The whole matter is involved in so much uncertainty, and each of the Churches can present so many good and valid reasons in its favor, that every one must consult his own inclinations, and join that which is most congenial to his feelings.”

“I cannot think so, sir,” resumed the Doctor; “for when, on the other hand, I turn my attention to God, instead of man—when I look into the Holy Word, I find a _positive duty is imperatively enjoined_. This duty—that of uniting with the Church of God by a public profession of faith in Christ—poses a previous decision of the question, who and what that Church is. And the Scriptures must, therefore, (if I only knew how to find it,) contain such a specific description of the nature and peculiar characteristics of that Church as to enable me to decide which it is for myself, and that without any danger of mistake. Still, I confess that I have not yet found any such description in the book, or, if I have, have not yet found the corresponding organization in this country.”

“If you will pardon me for saying so, Doctor,” replied Mr Percy, “I think I can easily convince you that your difficulties are much more fanciful than real; or rather that they are much more theoretical than practical. The simple truth is this: You have nothing to do with other men’s decisions. It is nothing at all to you or to me what this good man or that great man may think. Religion is a _personal_ matter; its faith is _personal_ faith; its duties are _personal_ duties. It rests upon a _personal recognition_ of the teachings of God’s Word. You are personally responsible to God for your own individual faith and practice. You must therefore examine for _yourself_, and not leave others to decide these questions for you.

“You may investigate the subject just as though no one else had ever thought of it. You should regard no other man’s decision as of authority to you. You do not hesitate to treat a case of fever, because Hippocrates and Galen, Boerhave or Sydenham, Cullen or Bronsais, chanced to disagree either in theory or practice?”

“No, sir. I examine for myself, decide for myself, and act upon my own decision. If I should wait for the doctors to agree, I should never make a prescription.”

“Just so let it be in regard to this matter. I discover that you are in earnest. You desire to know the truth. You recognize God’s Word as the only standard of truth. By that, and that alone, we are to try our faith and practice. You have truly stated that this word teaches that the visible kingdom of Christ is not many, but one; and it must be now just what it was in the apostles’ days: I have my own opinion upon this question, but I will not intrude it upon you as an argument. If you will consent, we will together, during our voyage, make a careful, thorough, and systematic examination _of the Scriptures_ in regard to their teachings on this subject. And when we have finished, if you have any shadow of a doubt remaining, it will be more than I expect. My friend, Mr. Courtney, who will join us at our next landing, has given more attention to these subjects than I have, and will doubtless take pleasure in giving us his assistance, as will also, I trust, our Methodist friend.”

“Please then,” said Mrs. Percy, “postpone this matter till to-morrow, and, for our mutual advantage, make the investigation so thorough and extensive as to leave no room for doubt in any mind.”

“But, madam, you do not reflect that this would require all the leisure which we will have during the next two weeks.”

“Suppose it should: it will be time well spent. But we shall get on faster than you imagine. Mr. Courtney is a sort of walking-library upon these subjects, and Mr. Percy has had some personal experience in such investigations.”

“Very good,” replied the Doctor; “we will at least do what we can towards a complete examination of the whole subject, and should we not finish it during our voyage, you and Mr. Percy will, I trust, do me the favor to continue it at my house, after our arrival in Nashville; for you are then to be my guests. Nay! no excuses. I have claims upon you both, of which you are yet quite ignorant; and, in due time, I am very anxious to learn how and when you chanced to become Mrs. Percy; for when I saw you last, you were Miss Theodosia Ernest; and how and when Mr. Percy became a minister of the gospel; for when I last saw him, he was regarded only as a very promising young lawyer.”

“Then, sir, you are not the utter stranger that we supposed you to be!”

“So far from it, madam, I am, in one sense, indebted to you, under God, for the greatest blessing of my life.”

“Indeed, sir, this is all a mystery to me. I am not aware that I ever saw you before to-day.”

“That may well be; yet I have seen you very frequently. Some other time I will explain: I have now been shut up here so long, that I must take a turn on deck, and get some fresh air.”

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.”

FOURTH DAY’S TRAVEL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Perfectly correct, sir.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. It consists only of professed believers in Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“But is there _nothing_,” asked the Doctor, “in the history of _any_ of the other Churches at variance with the remarkable facts at Jerusalem? Were _all_ who at any time united with any one of the Churches as evidently believers as those were in the first Church?”

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

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

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

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

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

“This is enough, surely, to set aside your proof; but now I go still further, and say that to have received the unconverted, whether children or adults, would have utterly subverted the very objects for which the Church was instituted, and consequently it would have been no less than madness to admit them. I know we differ here, because we differ in regard to what the _objects are_ for the accomplishment of which the Church was constituted. You Episcopalians look upon it as the instrumentality of salvation. You baptize the children and receive them into the Church to _save their souls_. You pretend thus to _regenerate_ and _make them members of Christ_. The _Scriptures_ teach, however, that they must be _first_ made members of Christ, (by faith,) and _then_ made members of the Church of Christ. They do not come into the Church _for_ salvation, but they are entitled to its privileges and required to assist in the transaction of its business, because they are already of the saved. They must _belong to Christ_ before they can be qualified to _act for Christ_. He does not set men and women (or little babies either) to administer the laws and ordinances of his kingdom until they have first become the willing subjects of the King. And if the Church be, as we have seen that it is, the authorized executive of his kingdom, it follows, of course, that _none who are not professed believers upon him can be admitted to its membership_. To admit them would be to place the management of the affairs of his kingdom in the hands of his enemies.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Lydia was not baptized until the Lord had first opened her heart, so that she attended to and believed the gospel, as it was preached by Paul.

“The jailer believed in Christ, with all his house, and then they were baptized.

“Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, with all his house; and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and then they were baptized.

“All the Churches to whom the epistles were addressed, consisted, as we have seen, of believers in Christ. And, in the language of the famous Pedobaptist, Richard Baxter, author of the Saint’s Rest, I can say: ‘_In a word, I know of no one word in Scripture that giveth us the least intimation that ever man was baptized without the profession of a saving faith, or that giveth the least encouragement to baptize any upon any other faith._’”

“I think, gentlemen,” said Doctor Thinkwell, “we shall be obliged to let this test stand on our tablet. It seems to me that, if _any thing can be proved_ from Scripture, this has been, namely, _that the first Churches consisted only of professed believers_. And now let us hasten on, or we will finish our voyage before we have completed our examination. Is there any other peculiarity which invariably and of necessity characterized these ancient Church members?”

“Yes, sir,” replied Mr. Courtney. “They were, of necessity, every one of them _baptized_; for it was by the rite of baptism that they were admitted into the _visible kingdom_; and the visible Church could not go _outside_ the visible kingdom for her members.”

“Then you do not claim that baptism is the door of entrance into the _Church_?”

“Strictly speaking, it is not, sir. It is the way of entrance into ‘the visible _kingdom_;’ and through the kingdom to the Church. No one can reach the Church, except through baptism; but every baptized believer is not a Church member. The eunuch was in the visible kingdom as soon as he was baptized; but he was not a member of any Church. The Church consists of such baptized believers as have voluntarily associated themselves together according to the scriptural constitution, to administer Christ’s ordinances, and enforce his laws among themselves. But it is just as true that no one can be a Church member who has not been baptized, as though baptism were itself the door of entrance into the Church.”

“Excuse me, Mr. Courtney,” said Theodosia; “but do not Baptists receive members into the Church by baptism?”

“Certainly not, madam. They sometimes think they do; and, in fact, a _formal_ admission is dispensed with, and their membership is taken for granted. But the facts are these: The candidate comes before the Church and asks for baptism. (If it were not convenient to come to the Church, he might ask it of any one whom the Church had previously authorized to administer it. But it is always desirable and prudent to have the advice and sanction of the Church when it is practicable.) The Church, after hearing his experience of grace, in order that it may be able to judge whether he is really a penitent believer, directs him (if his experience be satisfactory) to be baptized. And then, after his baptism, the members of the Church, or the pastor in their name, gives him the right-hand of fellowship, in token of his reception as a member. He first gives himself to Christ in his heart, by faith; then he goes to Christ’s people, and makes _profession_ of his penitence and faith. Upon this they are authorized and required to admit him into the _visible kingdom_ by baptism; and he then gives himself to some company (_ekklesia_) of Christ’s people, to walk with them in all Christ’s ordinances: to aid them in their labors, and be subject to them in love. In general, however, the application for baptism is regarded by both parties as an application for reception into the Church as a member, and the determination that he ought to be baptized is accompanied by a resolution to regard him as a member so soon as he shall have been baptized; and he is, therefore, immediately upon his baptism, a member, to all intents and purposes, even without any formal act of recognition.”

“All this is nothing to our present purpose,” said Mr. Percy. “The question before us is not whether one is made a Church member _by_ baptism, but whether he can be a member _before_ baptism and without baptism? Whether baptism makes him a member, or only qualifies him to become a member, it is certain that _all_ the members of the apostolic Churches were baptized people.”

“Let me so write it in the tablet,” said Theodosia. She wrote, and it then read thus:

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

I. It consists only of professed believers in Christ.

II. Its members must have been baptized upon a profession of their faith.

“I think, my dear,” said Mr. Percy, when she read it aloud, “you have slightly exceeded our instructions in adding that last clause. We have seen that the Scriptures teach that they were all believers; and we know they were all baptized; but our friends here may object to your making the baptism _necessarily subsequent to a profession of faith_, for that will cut off even real Christians who chanced to be baptized _before_ they were old enough to believe or make profession.”

“What if it does?” she answered. “I thought we were to decide these questions by the teachings of the Book; and if the Book teaches that Church members must be professed believers, it teaches just as plainly, and by the same passages, that baptism must _follow_ faith. It was ‘repent and be baptized,’ ‘believe and be baptized,’ that John and Christ commanded; and all Church members that we read of, _first_ repented and believed, and were _then_ baptized upon _profession_ of their penitence and faith. We have not found a single case of baptism _first_, and faith and penitence coming after it.”

“She is right, sir,” said the Doctor, “so far as our investigations have gone; but is it certain that we have seen _all_ teachings of the Word upon this point?”

“If there were even the shadow of proof that any such instance existed, we should have had it paraded by our Pedobaptist friends long ere this,” said Mr. Courtney. “They have told us that infants were circumcised, and, therefore, _ought to be baptized_: that Christ took little children in his arms and _blessed_ them, and, therefore, they _ought to be baptized_: that he told his disciples to _let them come_ to him, in order that he might put his hands or them and bless them, and, therefore, they _ought to be baptized_: that the word of God nowhere _forbids_ their baptism in direct terms, and, therefore, they _ought to be baptized_: they tell us that children are born sinners, and, therefore, _ought to be baptized_: that they are called holy, and, therefore, they _ought to be baptized_. They tell us that they _are born in the Church_, and, therefore, _ought to be baptized_; and that they _ought to be baptized to bring them into the Church_. They give a vast number and a great variety of strange and contradictory reasons why they _ought to be baptized_; but they have never presented _any single instance_ in which either an infant, or any other who had not made profession of penitence or faith, _ever WAS_ baptized by John or Christ, or any of the apostles—except so far as they may take it for granted that the baptized _households_ or families were not believing families—a supposition which we have seen is utterly untenable.”

“If,” said Theodosia, “the baptism of these _families_ proves that _little infants_ were baptized, I will undertake to prove that _little infants voted for General Taylor_ when he was chosen President; for I can find a dozen men who will each of them testify that he and all his family voted for the hero of Monterey and Buena Vista. But, since little infants are not capable of voting, and since the Constitution requires that every voter shall be twenty-one years of age, I take it for granted that these families consisted of grown-up boys, or others legally qualified to vote. What would you think, Doctor, of a writer on the constitutional conditions of citizenship in the United States, who should maintain that little infants were certainly entitled to vote, for the history of the country records several instances in which _whole families_ had voted for Washington, for Jefferson, for Jackson, and Taylor!”

“_I_ would think,” interrupted Mr. Courtney, “that he exhibited quite as much common sense, and quite as much acquaintance with the rules of logic, as those doctors of divinity who maintain that infants must have been baptized, because among the thousands and thousands who believed and were baptized in the apostles’ days there were some half a dozen households.

“But we are discussing again a position which we had already settled. We have seen that none but professed believers could be Church members; and we are now to inquire whether they could be Church members before they had been _baptized_?”

“I hardly think it necessary to make an argument on this point,” said Mr. Percy, “since _all_ denominations, so far as I know, substantially agree that no one can be admitted to the Church without that ceremony which they call baptism.”

“I would be glad, nevertheless,” replied the Doctor, “to know upon _what scriptural authority_ all denominations rest this item of their faith and practice.”

“That is very easily made out, Doctor. 1st. Christ _commanded_ them to believe and be baptized, and this is, therefore, after profession of faith and penitence, the first formal act of external obedience.

“2d. All of whom we read in the Book were at once baptized upon profession of their faith. The three thousand who believed upon the day of Pentecost, and all the many thousands who were added to them in various places afterwards, were all baptized. No instance is on record of one being received without it.

“3d. The first Christian Churches were habitually addressed _as baptized_ persons. We are told that they had ‘_been baptized into Christ_,’ ‘_buried with him by baptism_,’ and the like.

“These proofs are so strong and complete that, although some have dispensed with any _personal profession of faith_, yet no denomination claiming to be a Christian Church has ever dispensed with what they called baptism, or considered those as complete Church members who had not received _something_ which they regarded as baptism.”

“How, then,” asked the Doctor, “can this be a characteristic or _distinguishing_ mark, since all the claimants possess it in common?”

“The true Church, sir,” said Mr. Courtney, “must not merely have a rite which is _called_ baptism: it must have actual baptism: it must have _that very baptism_ which Jesus Christ commanded, and _these first Churches practiced_. That cannot be a true Church of Christ which has _abolished_ his baptism and _substituted some other ceremony_ in the place of it, even though that other ceremony should be called by the same name with his.”

“But, my dear sir,” exclaimed the Doctor, “don’t you see that if we attempt to make any practical application of this mark, we shall be first obliged to go over the whole baptismal controversy in order to ascertain what _was_ the act which Christ in fact commanded?”

“Not at all, sir. It will not be necessary to _prove_ what was the original act, since they themselves admit it; nor will it be needful to prove that they have _changed_ it, for they have, some of them at least, confessed it, and openly claim _the right_ to change it again—as often in their discretion as they may think best.

“Very well. Then we may consider ourselves as having taken at least two steps in our investigation. We have ascertained that a Church, as regards its members must consist of professed believers, and that these believers must have beet baptized. What have we next?”

“If you will permit me to suggest another mark,” said Mr. Percy, “I will remind you that in our examination yesterday we found that the Church, when regarded as an actual, visible, working body, was in _every instance_ a local and an _independent_ body. Now, since it is the actual and visible Church for which we are looking, we will find it a local, separate, and independent organization, complete in itself, and _not bound up with others in any great ecclesiastical establishment_. It cannot be any collection of federated, religious societies, mutually bound together and subordinated to each other, or to some common head. It stands alone, supreme under Christ, as regards its own membership; but having no authority beyond the pale of its own number. There is, in the Scriptures, no appearance of subordination of Church to Church, of one Church to many, or of all to one. There were no territorial Churches and no national Churches. The Church at Jerusalem was _one_ Church: the Church at Antioch was _another_ Church: the Church at Ephesus was another. Each of the multitude of the Churches which were ‘scattered about throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria,’ was just as much a Church as the Church at Jerusalem. There was no Church of Judea including them all; nor did any one of them, or all combined, pretend to exercise authority over any other.”

“Certainly,” said the Doctor. “If we have discovered _any_ thing about the Church, we have discovered that it is a local and independent organization.”

“And this is equally true of the Church,” said Mr Courtney, “whether we consider it as an actual, visible, and working _assembly_, met together for the worship of God and the administration of the laws and ordinances of Christ, or whether, in accordance with the usage of modern language, we employ the term generically to signify our _mental conception_ of all the visible Churches in the world, as if they were united in _one great universal assembly_. The whole cannot be different from the parts of which it is composed.

“If every true Church is, as we have seen, a local and independent organization, then the aggregate of them all cannot include any that are not thus local and independent; and if federated ecclesiastical establishments are not true and scriptural Churches, then such establishments can make no part of a true and scriptural _conception_ of a visible Church universal.”

“It is of no consequence at all to me,” said the Doctor, “what this _imaginary_ body may be composed of. I want to find the real. I can readily conceive of a great visible Church universal, including all true visible Churches. I can conceive, also, of a great visible Church, including all that claim to be Churches. I can conceive of a vast _invisible_ Church, including all believers, past, present, and to come; but these are not the objects of my search. I want to find that visible organization to which Christ has intrusted the administration of his laws and ordinances; and I am satisfied that when I find it, it will be a _local and independent organization_, composed of baptized believers.”

“Let me write this third mark in my tablet,” said Theodosia.

When she had written, the tablet read thus:

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

I. It consists only of professed believers in Christ.

II. Its members must have been baptized upon a profession of their faith.

III. It is a local organization, and independent of all others.

“I do not feel quite satisfied with this last mark,” said Mr. Courtney. “It tells the truth, but not the whole truth. Each Church of Jesus Christ is a separate organization, complete in itself, and competent of itself to exercise all the functions of a Church. It can receive members. Rom. xiv. 1. It can exercise discipline (1 Cor. v. 1⁠–⁠13) by expelling or suspending members. It can restore them upon repentance. 2 Cor. ii. 1⁠–⁠11. It can reject false teachers, and cast out those who hold false doctrines. Tit. iii. 10; Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20. It can elect its own officers. Acts vi. 1⁠–⁠7; xiv. 23. It can ordain and send out missionaries, or evangelists, to found other Churches, which, however, when established, shall be as independent as itself. Acts xiii. 1. And it can do all that, in the Scripture, is predicated of any Church of Christ. But, while it is independent of all other Churches or federations in its organization, and in the exercise of its functions, it is so absolutely dependent on Christ its Lord and King, that it _can make no laws_, but only execute the laws which Christ has made; and it can exercise _no authority_, but such as was specially delegated to it by Christ. It is simply and only the _executive_ body to which Christ has intrusted the administration of his kingdom, according to the constitution and laws which he made for its instruction and government. I would therefore have preferred that when you wrote it down as an _independent_ organization, you had added some word to slow the limit of this independence.”

“I think, sir,” replied Mr. Percy, “that we will understand well enough what we mean by our mark, especially after your explanation; but let me ask if this absolute recognition of _Christ as its only head and lawgiver_ does not itself constitute one characteristic mark of a true Church? If it is the executive of his kingdom, it must, of course, execute the laws of the King. Christ is its sole and only Lord. He makes the laws. It is _as his laws_, and only as such, that the Church can execute them; and in doing this it must proceed in strict accordance with the requirements of the King. The executive cannot make laws for itself. It is bound by those already made, and must carry them into effect alike, whether it approves or disapproves. It cannot abrogate them. It cannot nullify them. It cannot change or modify them. It can only ask, What was the intention of the Lawgiver? What did he say, and what did he mean by what he said? When this is known, it has no discretion left. If it changes the law; if it refuses to execute it as it was given, it is a virtual rebellion and _secession_ from the dominion of the King. It is no longer _his executive_. It is no longer _his Church_. But if it goes still farther, and permits other lords to make laws for it, and acknowledges allegiance to other powers, then it has not only rebelled against and seceded from the rightful sovereign, but has united with his enemies, or at least with his rivals. It is, then, not only no longer a Christian Church, but it is _anti_-Christian; not only not Christ’s, but against Christ’s Church. Nor will it make any legal difference whether these new lords and lawgivers make their new regulations in their own name, and openly and avowedly on their own authority, or whether they claim in the name of Christ a right _which he has never given them_. A Church of Christ has Christ _alone_ for her King and Lawgiver, and can never acknowledge the authority of any man or body of men—not even of herself—to change one jot or tittle of Christ’s law, or to institute new laws or regulations in regard to her ordinances, her terms of membership, her rules of discipline, or any thing else that comes within her province as a Church of Christ.

“That is most certainly an indisputable conclusion, which grows of necessity out of the admission that Christ is her only King. And I do not suppose that any man, or body of men, claiming to be Christians, will deny that Christ is the head over all things to his body, which is the Church, or that any thing is to be received by the Church as a rule either of faith or practice which does not rest upon ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ as its authority.”

Mrs. Percy took up her tablet again, and entered this mark, and it then read—

SIGNS OR MARKS BY WHICH TO KNOW A TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST

1st. It consists only of professed believers in Christ.

2d. Its members must have been baptized upon a profession of their faith.

3d. It is a local organization, and independent of all others.

4th. It has Christ alone for its King and Lawgiver, and recognizes no authority but his above its own.

“We have now seen,” said Mr. Courtney, “the characteristics of a scriptural Church in regard to its _membership_ and its _constitution_. We need yet to learn what were its peculiar _doctrines_, and what were the _objects_ or purposes of its organization.”

“I remember,” said Theodosia, “that when we were studying the nature of the _kingdom_, the other day, we found that all its subjects were voluntary subjects, who had come of their own free will and accord, and had sought for admission. Is it not also a characteristic of a Church within this kingdom that its members must have become such by their own personal and voluntary act?”

“Certainly it is; and I thank you for reminding us of it; for I had well-nigh forgotten it,” said Mr. Courtney. “You may add this mark also to your tablet; for nothing is more certain than that the members of these first Churches (which must ever be the pattern of the true Churches of Christ) became members with their own personal consent, and by their own voluntary act. Each one for himself ‘gladly received the word.’ They voluntarily ‘consorted with’ the company of the believers. They were not driven to it by the government, with fines, imprisonments, and stripes. They were not forced by the authority of parents, or of masters. They were not carried in while they were little helpless babes, and made Church members without their own knowledge or consent. Nothing is plainer than the fact that the members of Christ’s Church were designed to be converted people—those who had been renewed in the temper and disposition of their minds—who had been regenerated by the power of God, and made new creatures in Christ Jesus. They had been aliens, but now were sons. They had been in darkness, but now were light in the Lord. They had lived after the flesh, but now they lived after the Spirit. Old things had passed away, and all things had become new. Those who had thus been changed would love Christ and love his people, and desire to be associated with them. Such would desire the prosperity of Christ’s kingdom, and in their hearts would pray for its advancement. Such, and only such, could be with any propriety intrusted with the management of the business and the administration of the ordinances of the kingdom. Religion is a voluntary thing. Religion is a _personal_ matter. It has to do with personal opinions, personal feelings, and personal actions. No one can be religious by proxy. He must repent for himself, believe for himself, love the Lord Jesus for himself: and for himself he must obey, by submitting to baptism as the ordinance of Christ, and uniting with his Church as the people of Christ.”

“I do not see,” said the Doctor, “that there can be any objection to this test. We certainly did not find in the Scriptures any instance of involuntary Church membership.”

Theodosia wrote in the tablet a fifth mark, namely:

“5th. Its members have become such by their own voluntary act.”

“Now, what shall we say in regard to its doctrine?” asked the Doctor.

“That,” replied Mr. Courtney, “is a much more difficult question than would at first glance appear; for, while all agree that there are certain fundamental doctrines, upon which the whole gospel system is based, it would take too much time, and would too much complicate our present investigation, to examine and determine precisely what they are, and just how far a Church may lose them, or depart from a full belief of them, without ceasing to be a true Church of Jesus Christ.”

“There is, however,” said Mr. Percy, “at least _one_ doctrine which is involved in the very nature of the ancient profession of faith; and that is, the Divine nature and Messiahship of Jesus.”

“So also,” said Theodosia, “was the doctrine that man is a sinner, and Christ the only Saviour; for these ideas are both involved in penitence and faith.”

“It will answer all our purposes,” replied Mr. Courtney, “to say that a true Church of Jesus must believe and teach the fundamental doctrines of the gospel of Christ. We shall not probably disagree about what these doctrines are, so far as to make any difficulty in the way of applying our test; and if we happen to do so, the question can be settled then as well as now.”

Theodosia added therefore this sixth mark:

“6. It holds, as articles of faith, the fundamental doctrines of the gospel of Christ.”

“We need now, it seems to me, but one thing,” said Mr Percy, “to complete our tablet. It is not every association of Church members, or every _assembly_ of Church members, that constitutes a Church of Christ. His Church was instituted for a specific purpose. It has certain objects in view: certain duties to perform; and it can only be regarded _as a Church_, when it is considered in its relation to these objects and duties.”

“That is very true, sir. There may be associations or meetings consisting exclusively of real members of a true Church, and even including all the members of such a Church, organized for some secular or moral, or even for a religious purpose, and yet it would not be a Church.

“The ekklesia of Christ is not a mere association or assembly of his real and visible people; but it is an _official_ assembly, for specific purposes, clearly designated in the Word.

“The jury is not a mere assembly of twelve men; or of twelve men properly qualified to be jurors; or of twelve actual jurors (when released from their official duties as jurors and) engaged in some other business. It is ‘_a jury_’ only when properly qualified, duly organized and acting in its _official_ capacity, in accordance with the laws of its existence. So the Church is not a mere assembly of Church members, when met together for any of the common or uncommon purposes of life; but only an official assembly, for the purposes enjoined in _the law_ of the King, by whose authority it exists, and in whose name it acts.”

“Do you mean to say,” asked Theodosia, “that the Church is in being only so long as it is in official session? Would a Church cease to be a Church when it is dismissed, and only become one again when it has again assembled?”

“Only in the same sense, madam, that our legislature ceases to be a legislature when it adjourns for dinner. Its members are still members, duly qualified and reads to act; but they _cannot_ act _as a legislature_ till they come together again as an official body. And if, in the interval, nay of the members, or all of the members, had gone to a political meeting, and passed resolutions, or nominated candidates, or formed a temperance society, those would _not_ have been acts of ‘_the legislature_,’ and would have no legal sanction. So the Church, when it has been dismissed, still exists in the being and qualifications of its members; but it can perform no Church action, as the judiciary and executive in the kingdom of Christ, until it shall have come together as an _official body_. But we were about to inquire concerning the specific objects for which Christ’s Church was constituted. These we must learn, as we have all that we know about the Church, from the teachings of the book. We must ascertain what the Church was _instructed to do_, and what the apostolic Churches actually _did_, in their official capacity, as Churches of Jesus Christ.

“This will not give us much trouble, after the examination we have already made. From the instructions which the Master gave to the offended brother, Matthew xviii., we have seen that one of its duties was to adjust disagreements which might arise among its members. From Acts i. 22, vi. 5, we learn that it was to choose its own officers. From Acts xi. 22, xiii. 3, we see that it was its province to set apart and send out missionaries. From 1 Cor. v. 13, we find it was to exclude the sinful and disorderly; and from 2 Cor. ii. 8, to restore such upon evidence of their repentance. From 1 Cor. xi. 20⁠–⁠34, we learn that it was to regularly observe the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, in remembrance of him. From Rev. ii. 14, 15, that it was to take proper measures to preserve the purity of doctrine; and from 2 Thess. iii. 6, and 1 Cor. xi. 2, that it must maintain the ordinances in their purity, as it had received them.”

“I think,” said Mr. Percy, “we might sum up the whole matter in few words. The Church is the visible executive and judiciary of the kingdom. As the executive, it receives members, elects officers, ordains ministers, sends out evangelists, or missionaries, observes ordinances, and provides for the regular and public worship of God. As the judiciary, it settles disputes, excludes the disorderly, restores the penitent, condemns false doctrines, and does whatever is needful to preserve the peace and purity of its members.

“We have found no instance of its exercising _legislative_ powers. It makes no new laws. It ventures not to repeal, or even modify, the laws of Christ: this were to invade the prerogative of the King.

“The only instance which _seems_, at first glance, like an act of legislation, is that in which the _apostles and elders_ associated the Church with them in their decree about circumcision. Acts xv. 22, 23. But it was to the apostles and elders that the Church at Antioch had sent. And care is taken to show that the binding authority of the decree is not in the Church, but in the Holy Ghost. And from Acts xvi. 4 we learn, that although the _brethren_ had been apparently associated with the inspired apostles and elders, yet _it was only in the sending of the messengers_; for the decree is here expressly called the decree of the _apostles and elders_ which were at Jerusalem, as distinct and separate from the Church. _They_ were inspired and fully authorized to _legislate_; but the _Church_ could only execute the laws which the King had enacted, or might enact, through those whom he inspired to speak his words.”

FIFTH DAY’S TRAVEL.

In which the Tablet is completed—The great difficulty—A new character.

WHEN our company had assembled on the morning of the fourth day, they found themselves surrounded by a group of eager listeners. The discussion had begun to excite great interest among the passengers. Even the irreligious were delighted to find something which would in some degree relieve the monotony of the tiresome voyage; and Church polity became a prominent subject of discussion in every part of the boat.

It must be admitted, however, that, except in the ladies’ cabin, where Mr. Percy, Theodosia, and Mr. Courtney could speak for themselves, the party which they represented met with very little favor. The prevailing sentiment was, that all who professed faith in Christ, and obedience to his laws, belonged to his Church. And it was regarded a sufficient answer to any argument in favor of a strict adherence to the scriptural model, that if it were received, _it would at once unchurch some of these professors_.

Here is, in fact, the great difficulty in the way of the general reception of the truth in regard to this subject. Every professor of religion who has united with any religious society, fully believes that he is a member of Christ’s Church; and his mind will receive nothing as truth which is opposed to that belief. If you reason with him out of the Scriptures, and show him the New Testament model of a Church, and point out to him the utter discrepancy between his society and the institution of Jesus Christ, he may not attempt to reply. He probably will not, even in his own mind, try to reconcile the differences; but he will say to himself, “I am not able to understand all the teachings of the Scriptures, but I know that _my good minister_, and my dear brethren, and myself, _belong to the Church_; and any doctrine that turns us out is false.” This is an impervious shield: no shaft of Scripture truth can penetrate it: no power of logic can wrest it from his hand. He will readily receive any theory of the Church which counts himself as a part of the Church, even though it should include the practical infidelity and open profligacy of material Christianity—all the abominations of Antichrist himself. But any theory, however scriptural, which excludes his darling self and those whom he esteems as honest Christian people, is to him a simple absurdity, about which it is not worth while to reason.

It is, nevertheless, a fearful truth, that all _cannot_ be right. _If there be any Scripture pattern, men have departed from it at their peril_. Christ’s Church must be what Christ established and enjoined upon his people to maintain. This is one definite and specific thing, plainly described and easily recognized in the Holy Word. And if Christ’s people have been blinded by the mists and clouds of traditional error, and led astray by leaders blinded like themselves, he may forgive them: he will forgive them. But he makes it now their solemn and imperative duty to go back to THE BOOK, and “inquire for the old paths,” and return to that organization which he established.

“Will you do me the kindness,” asked the bishop of Theodosia, when they were seated around the table, “to let me see the little tablet you were making yesterday?”

“Certainly, sir.”

He ran his eye down its several heads, and, directing his question to Mr. Courtney, asked what, according to those rules, would be his definition of the Church?

“_The Church_, sir,” replied the schoolmaster, “_is the local and visible judiciary and executive of the kingdom of Christ_. It consists of such members of the kingdom as have voluntarily associated together for the maintenance of the public worship of God, the observance of Christ’s ordinances, and the execution of his laws. But, if I do not forget, we had not quite completed our tablet yesterday. When finished, it will read thus:

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

1st. It consists only of professed believers in Christ.

2d. Its members have been baptized upon a profession of their faith.

3d. It is a local organization, and independent of all others.

4th. It has Christ alone for its King and Lawgiver, and recognizes no authority but his above its own.

5th. Its members have become such by their own voluntary act.

6th. It holds as articles of faith the fundamental doctrines of the gospel of Christ.

“Now, these gentlemen, who have been present all the time, will bear me witness that we have found each of these marks distinctly recognized in this HOLY WORD. The claimant to Church honors, which cannot show these marks, is therefore not a _scriptural_ Church. It is not _the_ Church which Christ established. It is not that Church which he founded on the rock of faith. It is not that Church which he authorized and ordained, to exercise the authority of his kingdom in his name.”

“I do not feel disposed to discuss these positions with you,” replied the bishop. “This is no fitting time or place for such a discussion. I am willing to grant that _you_ verily believe that you have, after careful and diligent search, discovered that these are the distinctive and peculiar marks of a true Christian Church, as laid down in the Scriptures. I am willing to grant that these intelligent ladies and gentlemen, who have so patiently listened to you, and seen you turn from chapter to chapter, and read the very verse on which your opinion rests, may have been compelled to agree with you; and yet I will show you that you have great cause to distrust your own conclusions.

“I suppose that you will not deny that you, as well as other men, are human, and, therefore, liable to err. I do not now say that you _are_ wrong, but only intimate the possibility that you _may be_ wrong. If you are right, the Church of Christ is a very insignificant affair. I do not know where it is. I have read no account of it. I have no certain knowledge of its existence; for I confess to you that I have not seen or heard of any body of people, claiming to be a Church, who unite in themselves _all_ that I think would be demanded by that tablet. But if there be somewhere, in some secluded neighborhood, such an assembly, or, if in some strange country there should be a hundred or a thousand such assemblies, it is certain they have never been recognized as the Church of Christ by any but themselves; and when this little company of ignorant people, unknown to history, and unknown to scientific theology, sets up its claim not merely to be a _part_ of the Church, but to be itself the Church, and the whole Church, and the only Church, against the countless thousands of the most devoted followers of Jesus, not in this age alone, but in all the past, from the days of the apostles down to the present hour, does it not seem, even to yourself, that it is _more likely_ that you and your little company are wrong than that all the congregated and successive hosts of God have been mistaken?”

“If it were true,” said Mr. Courtney, smiling, “that the multitude were always right, I would concede much to your suggestion. It might, in that case, be prudent for no man to go to _the Bible_ for his religious faith, but simply to inquire what opinions are held by the _majority_. If we adopt this plan, we shall, as Christians, all be driven into Romanism; and then, as men, into idolatry; for I suppose at least two-thirds of all the race are worshippers of idols, and a vast majority of all professing Christians are Roman Catholics. For myself, I prefer to be guided by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles rather than by the vast and countless majority. I say with Paul, that even though ‘an angel from heaven’ teach any other doctrine than that which I find here in this Holy Book, let him be accursed. I dare not follow the multitude to do evil.”

“Oh, no, my dear sir! you do not understand me. I do not deny that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice. I am willing this question shall be tried by the Word; but what I say is this: You and your little company are more likely to be mistaken in _your understanding_ of the Scriptures than all the multitudes of Christendom in every age. We must be governed by the Word; but is it the Word as _you_ and your little company understand it? or as countless thousands of the people of God, as they are known to history, have understood it, and practiced it in every age? Is the faith of the ancient Church to go for nothing? Is the understanding of the Fathers to go for nothing? Is the practice of the holy martyrs to go for nothing? The Church of Christ, my dear sir, is not a verbal abstraction, to be gathered out of the Testament, and written down upon a tablet. It is an historical verity. We can trace it on the map of history from the earliest beginnings down to the present time. At first a little stream, then a mighty river: at length a vast sea, and now a mighty ocean, which is, at last, destined to become a world-enveloping flood, which shall overwhelm all enemies and all opposers.”

“Oh, yes,” replied Mr. Courtney, “I would like to talk to you an hour about this ‘historical Church,’ and, perhaps, it may come in our way presently. But I am afraid just now I shall forget your argument, which, if I understand you rightly, amounts to this: Every man is to go to the Scriptures to see what the Church is, but when he reads them he is not to understand them to mean that the Church is what _they say_ it is; but he must take it for granted that they mean what the ancient historical Church says it is—what the Fathers say it is—and what the martyrs say it is. Now, the Fathers and the martyrs were, no doubt, very good people. They believed for themselves, and have gone to give account for themselves. You have the same word of faith which they had. You must believe for yourself, and God will hold you personally accountable for your faith and your practice. He charges you to found it on HIS WORD, and not on traditionary legends, or uninspired historical records of early Churches, Fathers, or martyrs.

“The fact is, sir, we do not know and cannot know with any considerable degree of certainty, what the fathers and the martyrs did believe and teach. Their writings have been mutilated and interpolated until they would now hardly recognize them; and history is often the mere record of traditions, and traditions are often mere old wives’ fables. I want something better for my religious faith and practice to rest upon than the vague and contradictory accounts of the faith of ancient Churches, Fathers, and martyrs. Then, you say that _I, as an individual, may be mistaken_, and am, in fact, more likely to be mistaken than all good Christians of every age. I might grant this, and yet I should feel that as I am personally responsible, I must personally examine and personally determine for myself in this as in other things. When I surrender my right to use my private judgment to determine for myself what the Scriptures teach, I will go to Rome and procure an infallible priest. Nothing less would answer my purpose. No other could take the whole responsibility.

“But I will meet you on your own ground. I will accept our historical test; for the truth is—and I will prove to you by _your own historians_—the constitution of the ancient Church and the faith and practice of the Fathers and the martyrs, in regard to this subject, was, down to the time of Cyprian, just such as is expressed in this tablet. I will go still farther. I will show you that it continued, down to the Reformation, to be the faith and practice of all those Christian communities which recognized the _Bible_ as their authority, or which _permitted their people to read the Bible_. Now, if you ask me to receive the interpretation which any Church or any people give to the Scriptures, let it, I beseech you, be that Church and those people that _had_ the Scriptures and _searched_ the Scriptures, and were free to understand them according to the meaning of the language, and not those who were forbidden to read them, or to believe any thing different from their priests, on pain of death.”

“Stop a minute, if you please, Mr. Courtney,” interrupted Doctor Thinkwell. “Let us make this matter practical as we go along. I want to see just what bearing it has upon the matter in hand. I asked you to tell me which was the true Church of Jesus Christ. You proposed rather to _show_ me than to tell me, and directed me to look for it in the Book. We have seen it there, as it was organized and established by Christ and the apostles. We have thus ascertained that it was a local company of baptized believers, voluntarily associated in accordance with Christ’s law, to administer his ordinances and execute his laws. For the sake of convenient reference, we have, as we ascertained from time to time some distinctive peculiarity of this Church, put it down in our tablet. We have thus far been guided entirely by the Scriptures. We have not been at all dependent on history or tradition. Now, if our tablet is complete, that is, if it has all the distinctive marks, or enough of the distinctive marks of a true Church to enable us to recognize one when our attention is directed to it, why should we complicate the issue by turning aside to explore a question of history? If it can be avoided, I do not want my faith to hang on any other testimony than the inspired record. _That_ I can trust. Outside of that I am afraid to go. I do not care what other people think; I do not ask what they believe. It is nothing to me: I must decide for myself. I shall use my own judgment, and be determined by the teaching of the BOOK, as I understand its language. It seems to me, therefore, that we may, for the present at least, dispense with any historical testimony on either side of this question. I do not see why we cannot at once proceed to try the various claimants, and decide who it is that has the characteristic marks.”

“It will, sir,” replied Mr. Courtney, “be very possible to decide the matter without any other information but that which we can gather from the Scriptures on the one hand, and our own personal observation on the other; but, at the same time, it will be more satisfactory, where we have undoubted historical testimony bearing upon the case of any claimant, to bring it before our minds, in order that we may decide in full view of all the circumstances. Such testimony will, however, come in by the way, and may be omitted till the occasion calls for it.”

“Then, please let us begin to make some practical application of the rules we have discovered. I am impatient to make some progress.”

“Whom shall we try first?”

“I should think that the Roman Catholic Church, by virtue of her age, and the extent of her claims, is entitled to our first consideration. I suppose there is no one present who regards her as the true Church of Christ, but I would like to understand precisely the grounds upon which we are compelled to reject her.”

“I do not much like,” said Mr. Courtney, “to take any course which will exclude, or even appear to exclude, from our tablet any scriptural test which may be suggested; and as it is evident from the declaration of our Saviour to Peter, that ‘the gates of hell should not prevail against his Church,’ and from the various prophecies which represent his kingdom as a perpetual and increasing kingdom, that the Church of Christ, as he established it, must have continued ever the same in all that is essential to its being, I would gladly add such a historical test as will enable us to identify among ourselves the Church of the earliest fathers, and of the holy martyrs, whose testimony seems to be so highly prized by our friends that they set it above the literal meaning of the Word itself. It is true, we can recognize the Church without this mark; and it is also true, that to those whose knowledge of ecclesiastical history is limited it may be somewhat difficult of application; but it is not the less valuable to those who have the needful information. The _test itself_ is simple and scriptural. The Church of Christ began with Christ. It did not exist before his day. It has existed ever since. Any organization claiming to be that Church, and yet originating a thousand years after it was established, cannot surely be what it claims. This is self-evident. And to _all these who know the origin_ of the claimant, the argument is quite as valid and convincing as though it were in the power of the most ignorant to apply it as perfectly as themselves; and to those who do not know, it may be made available by reference to _unquestioned_ historical authority. Consequently, though I would be very unwilling to make it the _only_ test, I cannot but regard it as a most certain and infallible one. And you will observe that we need not, in our application of the test, require of any claimant to _prove_ an origin in the time of Christ. We are willing to take it for granted that each and all of those organizations which claim to be Christian Churches did begin with Christ, unless we can show for them a more recent origin. The history of most or all these claimants has been written by themselves, and this history gives _their own statement_ of the time and place and manner of their beginning: now if we show the origin of each by their own account of themselves, I am sure none of them can reasonably complain.”

“But do you not see another difficulty in the way of applying this test?” inquired the Doctor. “We have ascertained that a Church of Christ is a local and independent organization. Now, the Church that was organized somewhere last year began more than 1800 years after Christ, and, consequently, if your rule should be adopted, could not be regarded as a true Church of Christ.”

“Not at all,” said Mr. Courtney. “We are speaking now of the _institution_ which Christ ordained and called his Church, and not of any particular individual _example_ of that institution. If I say the jury was first established in England a thousand years ago, and has existed ever since, I do not deny that the jury which was empanelled yesterday was a real jury. To make it a jury, it is only necessary that it should be composed of similar materials and organized for the same purposes with its ancient English prototype. We use the word church in its generic sense. We are speaking of the executive body in the kingdom of Christ. That kingdom still exists as he set it up. It has the same Lord and the same laws. It has also the same ordinances and the same _executive_. That executive is the Church. The kingdom cannot exist and be perpetuated without the Church, for it is the Church _only_ that is authorized to _receive members_ into the kingdom, either by her own act or that of officers appointed by her. Now, the kingdom has come down, by a regular succession of subjects, from generation to generation. There must have been, therefore, a regular succession of Churches to receive and cherish them. But these Churches must have been all formed upon the _same Scripture model_, and have been regular successors to each other. If we find at any time a new organization, with a _new constitution_, consisting of _different materials_, and governed by _different regulations_ from the original Church, as established by Christ, then we can readily understand that it is not his Church, but some new thing that has come in its place. We do not say that the model Church which was at Jerusalem, or any other of the Churches which were founded in apostolic times, has continued to the present time, but only _that there have always been Churches formed upon the same model_. Those first Churches were not extinct till others were in being, descended from themselves, and having the same Lord, the same faith, the same baptism, the same objects, the same offices, the same character of members, and, like themselves, executing the laws and observing the ordinances of the kingdom. So I trust Mrs. Percy may add to her tablet this test, also, viz.:

“It began in the time of Christ, and has continued to the present time.”

“If you will permit me,” said Mrs. Percy, “to suggest one other mark, I would say that the Church of Christ can never be a _persecuting_ Church.”

“That is true, madam,” said Mr. Courtney, “and since we have admitted one historical test, we need not object to receiving another; for, like the other, it will be very valuable to those who know enough of history to apply it.”

“But first,” said the Doctor, “let us see whether it has, like the others, the sanction of the Scriptures. We must not forget that this _alone_ is our authority.”

“Certainly,” replied Mr Courtney. “The Scriptures teach that it should be a _persecuted_ Church, but never itself a persecutor. It should _suffer_ wrong, but not inflict it. If it were persecuted, the persecutors must be outside itself. The Church of Christ could never persecute itself. Its law was the law of _love_. The world might hate it, but it was to bless them that hated it. The world should kill and destroy it, but it should pray for them that spitefully entreated and persecuted it. The beast and the false prophet should make war upon it: the great dragon should seek to destroy it: the woman sitting on the beast should be drunken with the blood of the saints; and there was a power which should set itself in the place of God, and should ‘_wear out_ the saints of the Most High’ with the bitterest and most fearful persecutions; but the Church of Christ was not to persecute or retaliate upon her enemies. No New Testament Church was a persecutor, and there is no intimation that Christ’s people ever should become persecutors. We may, therefore, very safely say, that whenever we find a claimant to Church honors upon whose skirts is found the blood of the saints, she is not a Church of Jesus Christ.”

Theodosia added to her tablet this eighth mark: “It never persecutes for conscience’ sake.”

“Now,” said Mr. Percy, “let me suggest one other mark, and then I think our tablet will be complete. It is also so far historical that it will require some knowledge of history to apply it, but it is most undoubtedly a scriptural test. It is this: No _apostate_ Church can be a Church of Jesus Christ.

“Individual members, who have hypocritically professed to take Christ for their King, may become apostates, and may go out or be cast out; as the apostle says, ‘They went out from us, because they were not of us.’ Whole societies may by rejecting Christ’s rule, changing his ordinances, or submitting to other rulers than Christ in matters of religion, place themselves without his kingdom; but in doing so they surely _cease to be Churches of Christ_. They may retain the name, but they are no longer what the name implies. They cannot be in his kingdom and out of it at the same time. They cannot be subjects of Christ while owning allegiance and yielding submission in religious things to other masters. Whenever a Church becomes apostate, and denies the faith or departs from the practice of the first Churches in any _essential particulars,_ it ceases at that very moment to be a Church of Christ, and has no longer any authority as the executive of his kingdom. It is itself a rebel.”

“I do not know so well about that,” said Theodosia. “We find that the first Churches fell into very serious errors, both of doctrine and of practice; yet they were not at once disowned.”

“You are both correct,” said Mr. Courtney. “It is not every error in doctrine, or every departure from the simplicity of the practice of the first Church, that constitutes apostasy; but there are some doctrines and some practices which are incompatible with the very nature of the gospel, and if a Church embraces these it is an apostate, and is no longer a Church of Christ.

“The Church of Christ is everywhere in the Scripture represented as faithful and true. She never gives up her allegiance to her Lord. We read, indeed, that ‘there should be a falling away,’ but it was a falling away of the parasites who had attached themselves to the kingdom, and not of the kingdom itself. It was only the man of sin and the son of perdition, a dead and putrid mass of religious corruption, that fell off. There is no intimation that ‘the Bride,’ ‘the Lamb’s wife,’ should forsake her faithfulness and abandon her Beloved. She was to be _tried_: she was to be persecuted: she was to be driven into the wilderness, (that is, into obscurity:) she was to be hidden from the eyes of the world for many a century; but she was always and ever to be a faithful, loving, and obedient wife. She was never to become the drunken bawd that sat upon the scarlet-colored beast, nor was she ever, like the offspring of that bawd, to become a harlot or the associate of harlots. If any people, therefore, calling themselves by the name of Christ, have at my time cast aside the peculiar characteristics of his people, _they are surely no longer to be counted as his people_. A Church which consists of subjects not designated by him, submits to rulers not authorized by him, and observes _ordinances_ not commanded by him, _is not his Church_, whatever it may once have been. Christ has no _revolted_, no _rebel_ Churches. When any Church rejects him as its sole King, it is no longer in his kingdom, and all its authority as his executive is gone. Its baptism is not the baptism of the kingdom, for it has no longer any right to admit members. Its ministry is not the ministry of the kingdom, for it is no longer authorized to ordain ministers. It may propagate its sentiments and perpetuate itself, but it cannot continue or originate a Church of Christ.”

“One thought more,” said Mr. Percy, “and then I think we are ready to proceed with the claimants. It is this: Whatever is _now_ an essential characteristic of a true Church, has _always_ been such since the Church was established. If for example, the Church of Christ cannot persecute now, there never was a time when it could persecute; and if an apostate Church cannot be a Church of Christ now, there never was a time when a Church that had become apostate could have been authorized to administer the laws or ordinances of Christ’s kingdom. If it be true that any Church which should _now_ become _apostate_ would, by that act, utterly incapacitate herself for the performance of any official act under the authority of Christ, then it must be equally true that every Church that ever did at any time become apostate did, at the time of doing so, become incapable of conferring genuine baptism, or real ordination. In short, from the moment it ceased to be a true and genuine Church of Jesus Christ, according to the scriptural characteristics which we have ascertained, from that very moment all its official acts were null and void.”

“It strikes me,” said the Bishop, “that your search for the true Church will now be very much like looking for a cambric needle in a stack of hay. You have pruned her away on every side until she will be of necessity so small as to be almost or quite invisible. I confess I begin to feel a great curiosity to be present at the finding.

“I would like to see that Church which has had a visible and actual existence from the time of Christ, which has never persecuted, never temporarily apostatized, and which has _always_ held the fundamental doctrines of the gospel; consisting in its membership _only_ of those who have first believed, and then have been baptized, and by their own personal and voluntary act have become its members. I say, if there be any Church which embraces _all_ these characteristics, I would like to see and become acquainted with it. But if I regarded myself as in any sense a party in this discussion, I should solemnly protest against the trial of my Church by any such rules.”

“And so should I,” said the Methodist, “for I see no necessity of such extreme strictness of construction. The people of God are those who love him and trust him, and wherever they assemble, there is a Church of God.”

“That, in a _certain sense_, is true,” replied Mr. Courtney; “but every assembly of those who love God _is not THAT CHURCH to which Christ has committed the affairs of his visible kingdom_. Every assembly of his people is not such a Church as that which Christ established, and requires you, as an obedient subject of his, to unite with and sustain. _That_ Church is a _peculiar assembly_; and if it has been described in the Book by such distinctive marks as we have discovered, your protest is simply a declaration that you are not willing to be tried by the Word of God. If there is _any one_ of these marks which we have invented ourselves, and did not find plainly put down in the Book, tell us which it is, and we will at once blot it out of our tablet. You will surely admit that there is _some_ way to know a true Church. If you can tell us of any better way than this, we will adopt it. But until some one can point out a more certain and reliable course, we must follow this. We have ‘_searched THE SCRIPTURES to see whether these things are so_;’ and for myself, I know of no better and no other way to ascertain what the Church is, than to find it in the Scriptures.”

“I _want_ no other,” said Dr. Thinkwell. “When God has spoken in his Word, I ask no other test of truth. I take the Bible, and the Bible alone, for my guide in all matters pertaining to religion. What I cannot find there I do not care for. What I do find there I trust I shall be found willing always humbly to receive and joyfully to obey. I acknowledge that I had no idea that there was so much in the Word concerning this matter. I had fancied, since I found so many and such different opinions among professed Christians, that the Scriptures must have been very indefinite, and have left the whole subject undetermined. But I find it is not so. These which we have found were certainly characteristics of the Churches of the apostolic days. I do not know whether there are any Churches _now_ that have these same characteristics or not; but if there be _but one_, and that so lowly and despised that the world does not so much as know it by name, with that Church I will, if possible, unite, and help, so far as God may give me strength, to build it up. I can never be contented with any human substitute for what my Lord himself ordained. Nor do I see why any people who love Jesus, and desire to obey _his_ laws, should hesitate to bring their Church organization any more than their faith or their practice to the Bible, and try it by the simple teachings of inspiration. And now, Mr. Courtney, if you are not weary, let us bring some one of the claimants to the Book, and try it. I am anxious to make some visible progress. We have spent several days merely in arranging preliminaries. I hope we can now get on more rapidly.”

“I have been so much interested in the preliminaries,” said Theodosia, “that I had almost forgotten for what purpose we were arranging them.”

“Well, we are now ready for the application, and will first see how the Church of Rome will look, when we examine her in the light of the Holy Word. Does she look like the Church of Jesus? Has she the signs and marks which Christ has put upon the executive of his kingdom?”

“Would it not be better to postpone our examination of this claimant until to-morrow?” asked Mr. Percy. “We cannot tell how long it may require, and it is most likely we shall all grow weary before we get through. There is danger that, in our impatience to reach some tangible result, we shall hurry over some matters which should not be lightly passed, or overtask the patience of these friends, who seem to feel an interest in the subject almost equal to our own.”

“You are right,” said the Doctor. “I am myself weary already with the long sitting of to-day; but when we meet in the morning, let it be understood that we are to waste no further time on preliminaries.”

SIXTH DAY’S TRAVEL.

In which the Church of Rome is tried by the Scripture tests, and found to be no Church of Christ.

WHEN the party had collected the next morning, they entered at once upon the subject, like people anxious to get through with a long-anticipated task.

Mr. Courtney commenced the conversation by saying, “Be kind enough to let us have the tablet, Mrs. Percy, to refresh our memories. This, you will all remember, is its only use. We have found certain things in the Scriptures concerning the Church; and when we were sure they were _there_, we entered them here, merely for the convenience of reference, and in order to give some system to our application of the Scripture teachings. Mark this: _We do not try the Churches by our tablet, but by the SCRIPTURE TESTS, of which our tablet is a mere memorandum_. We found—

“1st. That the Church of Christ, according to the Scriptures, consists only of professed believers in Christ, and _not of believers and their children_. [See pp. 138 to 149.]

“2d. That its members have all been _baptized_ upon profession of their faith. [See pp. 149 to 156.]

“3d. We found the Church to be a local and independent organization, and not a great collective ecclesiastical establishment, consisting of many societies subordinated to each other, or to a common head. [See p. 156 to 157.]

“4th. We found that while it was subject in all things to Christ as its king and lawgiver, it neither made laws for itself, nor submitted to any others but those of Christ. [See pp. 158 to 160.]

“5th. We found that its members became such, not by compulsion or restraint, but freely and voluntarily by their own personal act. [See pp. 160 to 162.]

“6th. We found that the Scripture Churches held certain peculiar _doctrines_, which of necessity are contained in the very enunciation of the gospel. [See p. 162 to 163.]

“These tests we can apply without any other knowledge of the different claimants than we can gain by our personal observation of the professions and the practices of each. By these the question, which is the Church, can be readily settled without any acquaintance with the _past history_ of the several claimants. But as the Church of Christ was the subject of prophecy, and we can, in Scripture, see not only the peculiarities which it _then_ possessed, but those which _it should exhibit in all coming time_, we availed ourselves of this circumstance, and looked into the glass of prophecy for some peculiar features, and must look into that of history to see the correspondence. Thus we found—

“7th. That Christ foretold his Church, which began with him, should be perpetual; and the true Church, therefore, is one which has not been destroyed or overcome by Satan and the gates of hell. [See pp. 174 to 176.]

“8th. It appeared evident to us, moreover, that the Church of _Jesus_, the executive of _his_ laws, could never be a _persecuting_ Church. [See pp. 176 to 177.]

“And lastly, we found, 9th, that no apostate Church could be the true Church of Christ, nor have any authority within his kingdom. [See pp. 177 to 179.]

“These marks belong to every true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. That claimant which cannot show them we must reject. We need not care what she may be called. We need not ask how numerous or how intelligent or how _pious_ her membership may be, for it is not numbers or intelligence or piety that constitutes a Church. To be a Church _of Christ_, it must consist of such people as _=he= has designated_—that is of baptized believers. It must be _organized_ according to _his_ instructions, and in conformity to the models which =he= furnished in the Scriptures, and in doctrine and practice as an official body it must be conformed to =his= laws. Now, if even a very numerous body of very intelligent and very pious people have associated themselves together as Christians, and yet _not in accordance_ with the Master’s instructions concerning his Church, they cannot be regarded as his Church. Theirs _is not_ the institution to which Christ, as King, intrusted the executive authority of his kingdom; and if they attempt to exercise it, they are (though it may be unconsciously, yet no less truly) usurpers and rebels. They may be the friends of the King. They may, in their hearts, wish well to the kingdom. They may earnestly strive to promote the invisible extension of the kingdom in the hearts of men. They may believe on Christ to the salvation of their own souls, and be the means of bringing thousands of others to believe and to be saved; but THOSE ORGANIZATIONS _into which they are incorporated_ are no more _the Churches of Christ_ than if they were not called by that name. To be _his Churches_, they must not only consist of _his people_, but be organized upon _his_ constitution, and governed in _their official_ acts by _his_ rules.”

“Certainly,” exclaimed the Doctor, “we all understand that. We have collected out of the Scriptures the _scriptural_ marks or characteristic peculiarities of a _scriptural_ Church, and all that now remains for us to do is to apply them fairly and honestly, without fear or favor, to the several claimants which ask to be recognized and treated as the Churches of Jesus. If any one will not be tried by these scriptural tests we may, it seems to me, regard _that fact_ as in itself a sufficient reason to reject its claims, since it is evident that no Church of Christ could be unwilling to bring herself up to the requirements of her Lord, as laid down in his Word. And now _please_ do not let us spend any more time on the preliminaries, but go at once into our work.”

“Let me,” said the Bishop, “suggest—not for the purpose of embarrassing your inquiries, (you have made your path sufficiently narrow already,) but merely to show that you are not yet quite ready—that you have in your tablet taken no notice of the _officers_ or _ministers_ of the Church. You have not inquired whether there are in the true Church one order, or two orders, or three orders of the ministry.”

“Nor,” replied Mr. Courtney, “have we any need to do so now, since this subject will necessarily come up when we come to apply our _fourth test_; for if Christ did not appoint prelatical bishops, then the Church that _submits herself_ to the _rule_ of such bishops has gone out from the fold of the gospel order, and submitted to the authority of other lords than Christ. By doing so she ceased to be a Church of Christ, and became the Church of the bishops: so, as _episcopos_ signifies a bishop, your Church is rightly named the ‘_Episcopal_,’ that is, the _bishops’_ Church.

“I will merely say, however, at this time, that the Church at Jerusalem was a Church competent to receive members and administer the ordinances before she had any _deacons_; and we read in Acts xiv. 23, of Churches which seem to have existed without any _elders_ or presbyters, from which I infer that a Church may _exist_ without any officers until it can _choose_ its deacons and its pastor, and have them properly ordained. It is not complete, but still _it is a Church_, and has within itself the authority to perfect its organization by the _election_ from its own members of a pastor to minister in the Word, and deacons to minister in its temporal affairs. But we will have occasion to look at this again as we progress with our investigations. And we are now ready, Doctor, to go on as you requested, and apply our tests to the boldest and most arrogant of all the claimants to Church honors. How is it with the Church of Rome? Does she consist only of believers?

“Certainly not. Her members are almost all made members in their _infancy_, without personal faith or any pretence that it exists. And, unlike the American Presbyterians and Methodists, Rome does not in practice repudiate her theory, and virtually disown her members till they give evidence of conversion, or at least of a desire to escape from hell. She counts them as having been made Christians in fact, as they were in form, by the ceremonial mummery of their baby baptism. In that, they say, they were regenerated and made members of Christ, and of his Church, before any act of personal faith in Christ was possible. Even, therefore, though we should concede that all her adult members are real believers in Christ, yet she embraces in her membership thousands and thousands who, so for from being qualified to act their part in the transaction of the business of Christ’s kingdom, do not so much as know their right hand from their left. Apply your second test. Have her members all been baptized?”

“Our answer to that question,” replied the Doctor, “must depend upon our decision of another, and that is, _What is baptism_? If sprinkling a little babe is baptism, then they have been baptized: if only the immersion of a believer is baptism, then they have not been baptized. You will remember that I doubted the propriety of introducing this test, (if it could have been avoided,) on the ground that it would, subject us to the necessity of going over the whole field of the baptismal controversy.”

“We need do nothing of the kind, sir,” replied Mr. Courtney. “The Roman Catholic Church has never _pretended_ that sprinkling was valid baptism, only so far as it was made such _by the Pope_, or by ‘_the Church_.’ That it was immersion which Christ commanded, which the first Churches practiced, and which was everywhere and always practiced (except in supposed cases of necessity) for over thirteen hundred years, no Roman Catholic will pretend to deny. It remained for Protestants, for men professing a purer Christianity, and a more sacred regard to the authority of the Scriptures and the truth of history; it remained for Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists, to distort and falsify history, and pervert and mystify the Scriptures, in order to obtain at least some shadow of support for the sprinkling ceremony which they have substituted for the baptism of the New Testament. The Roman Church felt no necessity for such a course. She asked no _Scripture_ sanction. The decree of a council or the bull of a pope is all the authority which she requires. It is on _such_ authority, and _only_ on such, that she has openly and _avowedly_ substituted sprinkling for immersion. She makes no secret of the business; she openly and boldly declares, in the face of God and man, that she _has changed_ the rite; that though Christ commanded and the first Churches practiced _immersion_, yet she had the right to _change_ laws and ordinances, and she has changed _this_ to sprinkling or pouring. She will tell you _when_ she changed it, and give you the reasons _why_ she changed it; and she habitually and justly taunts the sprinkling Protestants with having adopted _her_ rite, instead of the baptism of Christ and the Scriptures, while they pretend to disown her authority and submit only to that of the written Word.

“The only question for us to decide is, therefore, whether the popes and councils of the Church of Rome had any right to abolish the ordinance of Christ, and in its place to substitute another, bearing the same name indeed, but altogether different from it in form and in fact?”

“There can surely be no hesitation about the proper decision of _that_ point,” replied the Doctor. “But are you sure that the facts are as you have stated?”

“If I had not been, I should not have stated them. But I do not ask you to receive them on my authority. I will point you to the means of verifying, to the satisfaction of the most incredulous, the fact as I have stated it.[6]

“1. I might refer you to the statements of ecclesiastical history. What says Neander? What says Mosheim? What says Schaff? What say the Magdeburg Centuriators? What says every learned and candid historian, whether he be himself an immersionist or sprinkler, who has carefully investigated the subject?

“No one can carefully read what they have collected on this point, and not be ready to say, with that eminent Pedobaptist, Professor Stuart, ‘It is a thing made out, namely the ancient practice of immersion. So, indeed, all the writers who have thoroughly investigated the subject conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient times which seems to be more clearly made out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man who examines the subject to deny this.’

“2. I might refer you to those massive monuments of the ancient practice, the baptisteries, with their immense artificial pools deep enough to swim in; and I ask for what purpose they could have been constructed, at so much cost and labor, if baptism had not been immersion.

“3. I might refer you to the otherwise inexplicable fact that in the Roman Catholic Church, for many ages, adults and children, male or female, were always divested of their clothing when about to be baptized. ‘Revolting as this custom was,’ says Stuart, ‘yet it is as certain as testimony can make it.’

“But I need not try to prove what the party concerned has never pretended to deny, namely, that immersion was the original baptism, and that it was so recognized and practiced by the Church of Rome, and that, by the authority of the popes and councils, it has been changed to pouring and sprinkling.

“That very learned Roman Catholic, Doctor F. Brennan, in his work on the history of baptism, says, expressly, that such has been the case. Dr. Chase gives the following translation, of the first paragraph of what Brennan presents as a

‘Synoptical View of Ancient Times and Modern in Respect To Baptism, [Among Those Who Acknowledge the Papal Authority.]’

‘FORMERLY. | ‘AT PRESENT. ------------------------------------+-------------------------------- ‘Thirteen hundred years baptism was | ‘Now baptism is generally and generally and ordinarily an | ordinarily a pouring of the immersion of the person under | person with water; and only in water; and only in extraordinary | the Church of Milan immersion cases a sprinkling or pouring with | still continues, as something water; the latter as a mode of | peculiar to this Church alone, baptism was, moreover, called in | and extraordinary; elsewhere it question; ay, even forbidden.’ | would be punishable.’

“Bossuet, the famous Roman Catholic Bishop of Meaux, says: ‘We read not in Scripture that baptism was otherwise administered, [than by immersion,] and we are able to make it appear, by the _acts of councils and by the ancient rituals, that for THIRTEEN HUNDRED YEARS baptism was thus administered throughout the whole Church as far as possible_.’ Again, speaking of the fact that baptism is immersion, and was thus given by Christ and practiced by the apostles: ‘Though these are incontestable truths, yet neither we, [Roman Catholics,] nor those of the pretended reformed religion, hearken to the Anabaptists, who hold immersion to be essential and indispensable; nor have either they or we feared _to change_ this dipping, as I may of the whole body, into a bare aspersion or infusion on one part of it.’ In another work, in which he is defending the Roman Catholic usage of denying the cup to the laity in communion, he makes the following argument: ‘Baptism by immersion, which is as clearly established in the Scriptures as communion under two kinds can possibly be, has, nevertheless, _been changed into pouring_ with as much ease and as little dispute as communion under one kind has been established; for there is the same reason why one should be preserved as the other. It is a fact most firmly believed by the reformed, (though some of them at this time wrangle about it) that baptism was instituted to be administered by plunging the body entirely in; that Jesus Christ received it in this manner, and it was thus performed by his apostles; that the Scriptures are acquainted with no other baptism; that antiquity understood and practiced it in this manner; and that to baptize is to plunge: these facts, I say, are unanimously acknowledged by all the reformed [Protestant] teachers, by the reformers [Protestants] themselves; by those who best understood the Greek language and the ancient customs of both Jews and Christians; by Luther, by Melancthon, by Calvin, by Casaubon, by Grotius, with all the rest, and, since their time, by Jurieu, the most ready to contradict of all their ministers. Luther has even remarked that this sacrament is called _Tauf_ in German, on account of the depth; because they plunged deeply in the water those whom they baptized. If, then, there is in the world a fact absolutely certain, _it is this_. Yet it is no less certain that with all these authors baptism without immersion is considered lawful, and that the Church properly retains the custom of pouring; and _the Church_, in supporting these two customs which tradition proves are equally indifferent, has not done any thing unusual, but maintained against troublesome persons that authority upon which the faith of the ignorant rests.’

“In perfect accordance with these are many other Roman Catholic writers and teachers. They all admit and are ready to prove (if necessity require) that Scripture baptism was immersion, and was so received and practiced; but as the _external_ act was not of the essence of the sacrament, the Church had the right, and has employed it, to _change_ the rite, and substitute the aspersion of a part of the body for the immersion of the whole.

“If, in the face of these open concessions of their own most eminent men, a single doubt remains that the Roman Church has changed Christ’s rite and put another in its place, that lingering doubt will be removed by the simple fact that all the industrious research of the learned Dr. Wall could find no instance of any pretended baptism by sprinkling or pouring among the early Christians, except in cases of supposed _necessity_ from dangerous sickness; and no country, which had not been under the dominion of the Pope, in which this substitution had been made. ‘All those countries,’ he says, ‘in which the usurped power of the Pope is or has formerly been owned, have left off dipping of the children in the fonts, but all other countries in the world, which had never regarded his authority, do still use it.’

“If any shadow of a doubt should still remain, it must surely be dispelled by the account which Catholics themselves have given of the time and manner, when and how, the _change_ was made.

“Mr Robinson has gathered from their Latin documents the following facts:

“‘In the year seven hundred and fifty-three, Astulphus, King of the Lombards, oppressed the city of Rome. Pope Stephen the III fled into France to implore the assistance of Pepin, who had been lately elected king. He, whom many considered as a usurper, availed himself of this event, and with the address of a great politician turned it to his own advantage. He examined with profound reverence _a letter which Saint Peter had written and sent him from heaven_ by the hands of Stephen to persuade him to assist the Church. He promised instantly to execute the celestial commission, and he fulfilled his promise by freeing Italy from the Lombards, by replacing Stephen, and richly endowing the Church. Stephen was not ungrateful to his benefactor. He sanctified his title to the crown by giving the royal unction to Pepin in the Church of St. Denis, made him the first anointed sovereign in Europe, and denounced an anathema on the French if they should ever bestow their crown on any other family than that of Pepin. Stephen resided in France all winter, and had a severe fit of sickness, occasioned by the fatigue of journeying and the perplexity of his affairs, from which, however, he soon recovered.

“‘During his residence in the monastery of St. Denis, he introduced the Roman ritual. In the spring of the next year, seven hundred and sixty-four, in answer to some monks of Cressy, who privately consulted him, he gave his opinion on nineteen questions, one of which is allowed _to be the first authentic law for administering baptism by pouring_, and which in time was interpreted to signify sprinkling. The question proposed was, whether, _in case of necessity_, occasioned by the illness of an infant, it were lawful to baptize by pouring water out of the hand or a cup on the head of the infant? Stephen answered: If such a baptism were performed in such a case _of necessity_ in the name of the Holy Trinity, it should be held valid.’

“The learned James Basnage (a Roman Catholic antiquary) makes several very proper remarks upon this canon, as, that ‘Although it is accounted the first law for sprinkling, yet it doth not forbid dipping; that it allows sprinkling only in case of imminent danger; that the authenticity of it is denied by same Catholics; that many laws were made after this time in Germany, France, and England, to compel dipping, and without any provision for cases of necessity; therefore, that this law did not alter the mode of dipping in public baptisms, and that it was not till five hundred and fifty-seven years after, that the legislature in a council at Ravenna, in the year thirteen hundred and eleven, declared dipping or sprinkling indifferent.’

“It is not denied that pouring and sprinkling had in case of necessity been employed before this, but it was done without _legal authority_, and it was ever doubtful whether it were valid baptism. It was, however, legalized in _cases of necessity_ by Pope Stephen the III, and in all cases by the popish council at Ravenna.”

“I do not think,” said the Doctor, “that we need spend any more time on this point. If any thing can be made certain by testimony, it seems to be certain that this Church once baptized by immersion, and now do it by pouring or sprinkling. If the _first was_ the baptism commanded by Christ, they have abolished it, and substituted another act; and so are now no Church. If the first was _not_ the baptism commanded by Christ, then they were forages without baptism, and were, consequently, no Church.”

“But,” said Theodosia, “they were no Church even though their _act_ of baptism had been the scriptural act. They would have been no Church, according to our test, though they had been immersed, unless it had been done upon a personal profession of their faith. We found in our examination of the Scriptures not only that all were _baptized_ before they were counted as members of Christ’s Church, but they were _not baptized until after they had made profession of their penitence and faith_. So far, therefore, as these or any other people have been baptized before they believed, they are not scriptural Church members. The _immersion_ of an unconscious babe is no more gospel baptism than the _sprinkling_ of such a babe.”

“Perhaps you are right,” said the Doctor; “I will think of that hereafter. Let us now go on to our third test.

“Is the Roman Catholic Church a local and independent society of baptized believers, or is it a great establishment embracing many local societies? To ask the question is to answer it. Everybody who knows any thing of this hierarchy is familiar with the fact that each of all its thousands of local congregations is but a part of the great combination called the Roman Catholic Church, the central power of which is in the city whose name it bears, or rather in the Pope, wherever he may be; and it is very certain that we found no prototype of any such a Church in the New Testament. The Church of which we saw so many examples there was in every instance independent of all other Churches. It was never itself subjected to any other Church, or to all the other Churches; nor did it in any single instance demand or receive subjection from all others, or from any other, to itself. And even though we should admit the existence of a scriptural universal Church, that Church must be made up of scriptural Churches. If the single Churches were independent local bodies, the great collective Church must be made up of just such independent bodies. The whole could not consist of different materials from the parts of which it was composed. No great confederation of so-called Churches can be, therefore, in this general sense, the Church of Christ, unless each member of that confederation be itself a Church complete within itself, and as a Church entirely independent of the confederation of which it may be supposed to make a part. Even though we should conceive of something the parts of which are Churches, and the whole combined the Church, and call this conception the visible Church universal, it could embrace within its limits no ecclesiastical establishment consisting of local societies subordinate to some national central power, or even subordinate to each other. If the visible Church of Christ considered as a local organization is complete and independent within itself, then his visible Church considered collectively must be composed _only_ of such local and independent societies. The whole can embrace no more than all its parts. But let us go on to apply our fourth test. Has the Roman Church any lawgiver but Christ? Does she recognize any authority but his above her own?”

“Surely not,” exclaimed Mr. Percy, “if by the Church you mean the whole establishment, including the popes and cardinals; bishops and priests! The Church of Rome admits to power above herself, and does not hesitate to abrogate and change even the laws of Christ. But if you mean to ask whether any one of those local congregations which are called Roman Catholic Churches recognizes any authority but Christ’s above its own, that is another question.”

“Our friend the Doctor,” replied Mr. Courtney, “is looking for the visible Church of Christ. He desires to join it. He can only unite with it as a local assembly. In fact, we have already settled that the Church of Christ _is_ a local assembly, and nothing more. The question, therefore, which we have to decide is, whether any of the so-called _local Churches_ which may come before our observation are Churches of Jesus Christ; and if we find any such Church, which _as a Church_ recognizes the authority of any power but Christ’s outside itself to make laws for it, or to exercise discipline for it, or over it, that Church is not a Church of Christ. It has rejected Christ as its sole King, and submitted itself to other lords. It is not _Christ’s_ executive, but, so far as it exercises any authority, it carries into effect the laws of _some other_; or, what is worse, it abandons the exercise of all authority, and tamely _submits_ to the government of fallible men. So far from being herself the administrator of the laws of Christ, exercising under him the supreme authority of his kingdom a regard to its own membership; so far from deciding for herself, according to Christ’s law, whom she will admit and whom she must exclude, whom she will have to minister in holy things, and by what means she can best enforce her Lord’s requirements, she leaves all this to a minister, a priest, a bishop, a pope, a council, a conference, a presbytery, or some other controlling power, which she, _as a Church_, recognizes as having authority to determine for her, and to which she _as a Church_ is under obligations to submit. Now, the local Roman Catholic society is subject to the priest; it is subject to the bishops; it is subject to the councils; it is subject to the Pope; and if it should have the unheard-of temerity to appeal to the Scriptures, determine their meaning for herself, and, in obedience to what she thought to be the law of Christ, reject the authority of these human rulers and lawgivers, she would be at once disowned and cast out. She would be no longer a Roman Catholic Church.

“She is not as a Roman Catholic Church free to examine and decide for herself what are the requirements of Jesus, as the King in Zion, and carry them into effect: but she must believe and do what is required by the Pope. As a Church she has no power to say who shall be her members, who shall be admitted to or who excluded from her communion. As a Church she cannot choose her ministers, nor refuse the most abject submission to such as it shall please her human masters to place over her. The popes and councils make laws for her, and the bishops exercise discipline for her. She is a slave, whose only duty is to obey unquestioningly every command, not of Christ, but of men who have taken it upon themselves to lord it over God’s heritage.

“But new, if you look at the Roman Catholic Church as a great collective body, and inquire if this hierarchy has Christ alone for its Lawgiver and King, the answer must be no. She makes laws for herself. The decrees of her councils are of equal authority with the commands of Jesus. She is not the simple executor of the laws of Christ, but she has taken upon herself to change his laws and his ordinances, _refusing_ to obey him, and requiring obedience to her own enactments. The Pope is to her the king and lawgiver, and what the _Christ_ has commanded, her members are not even permitted to inquire for themselves.

“If now we apply our fifth test, and ask if her members have become such by their own voluntary act, the answer must be no. With very few exceptions, they were made such without their own knowledge or consent. They were made members by the acts of others before they were capable of understanding any thing about the matter.

“If you should take a pen, put it in the hand of a babe, and take hold of his fingers and guide his tiny hand in such a way that it should write its signature to a deed of gift conveying to the Church his whole inheritance, that act would be as much the act of the child, as is the act by which he is made to give _himself_ to the Church. It is no act of his. He is made a member not only without his desire, but without his consciousness. The members of the Scripture Churches were not made thus. They heard the Word: they were pricked in their hearts: they believed in Christ: they rejoiced in hope; and then they of their own accord consorted with the people of God. This is, therefore, no Church, because its members were not made such by their own desire, or even with their own consent.

“Does it, in accordance with our sixth test, hold the fundamental doctrines of the gospel? Is salvation, in her formulas made to depend on grace, through faith, or is it made to rest on _works_: on the observance of _forms_ and conformity to the _ceremonies_ prescribed by the Church? No one familiar with her ritual can doubt. The child is _made a Christian_ by its baptism; and as it grows up must complete the work of salvation by confessions and penances, genuflections and fastings, and the like. Here is no recognition of the sacrifice of Christ _once_ offered for the sins of the world, and vow available to every one who believes. Salvation is only to be found _in the Church_, and only to be received at the hands of the _priests_, and that by the use of certain forms. We need not take time to show her errors in detail. We need not speak of the adoration of images and supplications to saints. It is enough for us to know that she has so for changed the gospel plan of saving sinners that she cannot give the same directions to the convicted and anxious inquirer after salvation which the apostles did, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.’

“Seventh. Did it begin in the time of Christ, and has it continued to the present time? There is no doubt that in the time of the apostles a Church of Christ was founded at Rome. There is no doubt that it continued for a time to be a _true_ Church. At first it was composed only of baptized believers, who had ‘been buried with Christ by baptism,’ and whose ‘faith was spoken of throughout the world.’ It was at first and for several generations a simple local assembly, which claimed no authority over other Churches, and submitted itself to no authority but that of Christ. It took the law of Jesus for its guide and in all questions of doctrine or of duty appealed to at alone. So long as this continued, it was a Church of Christ. Had it continued thus until the present, we should rejoice to recognize it now as a true Church of Christ, which had existed from the earliest days But she did not continue thus. At an early day she began to recognize the authority of rulers whom Christ had not appointed; she submitted to laws which Christ had not enacted; she introduced members whom Christ had not authorized; and from that time she ceased to be a Church of Christ. She was still called by his name, but she was no longer his; she had become apostate, and, by doing so, had lost all right to act as his executive. She became the seat of sin, the very throne of Satan. She shed the blood of the saints by thousands upon thousands. She changed the ordinances of Christ, and showed herself to be the very ‘Antichrist,’ the ‘man of sin’ and ‘son of perdition,’ foretold in the Word. So long as she retained her first estate, she was a Church of Christ; when she entered the second, she was the Church of Rome, and in the course of time she styled herself the Roman Catholic or _universal_ Church. The exact date of her transformation from a Church of Christ to Antichrist is not now easy to determine; but she was certainly no Church of Christ from that day when she first imbued her impious hands in the blood of those whom she slew for the testimony of Jesus. In her present form as a religious _hierarchy_, and with her present constitution and character of membership and order of ministry, she dates her beginning long after the time of Christ. In his day, or that of the apostles, no such religious establishments were dreamed of. The Church of Christ, as we have seen, was not a hierarchy, and of course no hierarchy _could_ be his Church. And so even if this immense establishment had existed from before the death of Christ, it could have been no Church of his, for his Church was _not_ such an establishment, but a simple local, independent society. We know, however, from undoubted historical records, that it was at least as late as the second century before the Church of Christ at Rome gave place to the Roman hierarchy; so that she has not even this claim to be a true scriptural Church.

“Then, if we apply our eighth test, and ask if she has ever persecuted for conscience’ sake, all history will testify that she was for ages drunken with the blood of the saints. When was there a day that she did not persecute? In every age, and every country, where she has had the power, she has tortured, and tormented, and destroyed all who ventured to obey Christ rather than Rome. It is somewhat remarkable that, though she has sometimes killed Jews and Pagans for their religion, her chief cruelties have been inflicted on those who claimed to be the followers of Jesus: who studied God’s holy Word for themselves, and who would not recognize her authority above that of their Lord. They said that a corrupt apostate Church had lost all authority as the executive of the kingdom of Christ, and therefore that baptism conferred by her ministers, and on her authority, was no Christian baptism and they could not receive it as such. They consequently baptized those who came to them from the Roman Church even though they had been immersed by the priests. This Rome declared was the horrible sin of rebaptizing, or Anabaptism, and those who practiced it were called by them the Anabaptists. It is remarkable also that these Anabaptists could not find any authority in the Word for the baptism of children. They said Christ did not command it, for no such command can be discovered in the Book. They said Christ did not practice it; no more did the apostles; for no instance of its performance can be discovered in the Book. And since there was no _Scripture_ for it, they could not practice it as a religious ordinance. They consequently, while they dedicated their children to God, and carefully educated them in a knowledge of his Word, yet did not dare to mock God by conferring on them the baptism which Christ had appointed only for those who had repented and believed. For these things they were anathematized. For these things they were fined imprisoned, scourged, tortured, beheaded, drowned, and burned by the ‘_Holy Catholic Church_’ of Rome. For these things they are to-day fined, and imprisoned, and tormented, in every Catholic country where the Church _has the power_, and dares to use it. It is mainly by the curses which were denounced against them, by the instructions given for their extirpation, and the reasons given why they must be destroyed from the earth, that we can trace the history of the true Churches, from the time that the Roman hierarchy was established. The history of _that hierarchy_ is minutely recorded, and _that_ is called the history of the Church! But the true Churches of Christ have scarce a name for many ages. We might have been left to doubt of their existence, did not these decrees, which denounced them as the most fearful of heretics, and the record of the bloody executions by which these decrees were so remorsefully enforced, attest their continuous existence. But, as it is, we can recognize them in every age, and many lands. We can trace them by the streams of blood which they shed for the testimony of Jesus; and see them by the light of the fires by which their bodies were consumed, because they would not forsake their King, give up the liberty with which Christ had made them free, and subject their conscience to the rule of Rome. They boldly asked, ‘What has the emperor to do with our religion?’ They knew, in matters of religion, no other king but Jesus. They were governed by _his Word_; and this was their unpardonable crime. They would not obey the Pope: they would not heed the decrees of councils: they had the Word of God; that they could not disobey; its authority was supreme, and its instructions were complete. What need had they of popes and councils to teach them the law of Christ? And what right had popes and councils to change or abrogate the laws of Christ? They were Christ’s freemen, and would not, nay they could not, bow their necks to the yoke of Roman Catholic bondage, or bow their knee to Roman Catholic authority. And Roman Catholic authority, after ‘the Church’ had secured the alliance and control of the civil power to enforce her decrees, was not lightly to be cast off. Not the blood of individual offenders alone could satiate her vengeance; though countless thousands perished thus alone in the dungeons of the Inquisition, and in the flames of the ‘_auto da fé_;’ but whole provinces were laid waste by fire and sword, and all the population, men and women, innocent maidens and little, helpless infants, consigned to indiscriminate and murderous death—death made most terrible by all the atrocities which the most diabolical cruelty and most satanic ingenuity could possibly devise, to add to its horrors. The Church of Rome can count her victims, not by thousands nor by hundreds of thousands, but by millions; and these not Jews, rejecting Christ; not Pagans, bowing down to dumb idols; but believers in Jesus—baptized believers, meaning, like the early Christians, in their local churches, and organized upon the Scripture model; whose only crime was that they chose to obey Christ rather than the Pope. They would not acknowledge that Rome had any right to rule where Christ alone was King. They would not acknowledge the baptism of Rome, and would not baptize their children till they gave evidence of penitence and faith.”

“If it will not give you too much trouble,” said Theodosia, “I would like to hear some of the particulars of the Catholic persecutions. I know they are many; and some of them have been very destructive and cruel; but I have in my mind rather a general conception of nameless horrors, than any of the details of cruelty and death which you have referred to in such general terms.”

“I fear,” said Doctor Thinkwell, “that if we enter upon the particular acts of persecuting cruelty on the part of this Church, it will consume too much of our time. I have given some little attention to this matter, and can assure you that the history of her persecutions is, in a great degree, the history of the hierarchy. She has been not an occasional but a continuous persecutor. Still, if Mr. Courtney can select a few of the most striking or most instructive examples, it will, perhaps, not be amiss.”

“An examination of these facts,” said Mr. Courtney, “so far from causing a needless waste of time, or directing our attention from the main object which we have in hand, will be almost essential to our perfect understanding, not only of the position of this claimant, but of several of the others. And though we cannot enter into all the horrible details of the persecutions which God’s people have sustained from this ecclesiastical hierarchy and her descendants, we cannot do less than briefly to trace her history in connection with this point.”

“Please give it to us, then, as briefly as you can,” said the Doctor.

“No, no, Mr. Courtney!” exclaimed Theodosia. “Please tell us all you know about it. Dr. Thinkwell has been over all this ground, and does not remember that to the rest of us it will be entirely new, and will have all the interest of romance.”

“The history of persecution is a strange history, in any light in which we are able to view it; and the strangest chapter in that history is that which relates to the persecution of Christians by those who professed to be themselves the friends and followers of Jesus. It was not wonderful that Pagans should kill Christians, and seek to arrest the progress of a religion which so bitterly denounced their opinions and their practices, and was so utterly and irreconcilably opposed to all that they held sacred. Christianity, wherever it was received, abrogated and destroyed the power of the Pagan priests. The reverence with which they had been greeted was changed to pity or contempt. The costly offerings no longer came to enrich their shrines; no victims bled before their altars. The pomp and grandeur of their imposing ceremonies was gone. Their temples were crumbling to ruin; and all the splendor and pageantry of their once attractive ritual no longer attracted countless thousands to gaze, and wonder, and adore. These priests were the educated, the intelligent, the governing minds of vast and powerful nations. They would not see their power sliding from out their grasp, and make no effort to retain it. Instinctively they clung to it with the tenacity of the death-struggle. The intensest efforts of the mightiest minds of all the Pagan world were exerted in defence of the ancient religion. Nor does it seem too much to believe that they were aided in their counsels by suggestions from that Prince of darkness whose willing servants they had been so long. As Rome was now the mistress of the world, it was in Rome that the great battle must be fought. When Paul began to preach there, in his own hired house, bound by a chain to the soldier who had his liberty in charge, Christianity was too small a thing to excite more than contemptuous disregard on the part of those in power. But when converts had multiplied, and some of them were found even in the household of the emperor, the priests became alarmed. They did not choose to reason, but determined to destroy. The government belonged to them, and all the ingenuity of statutes, all the powers of arms, and all the authority of the empire, were employed at once to crush the new religion to the earth, and grind out every vestige of it from the minds of men. If it had been like other religions, such would have been the speedy and certain result. But the name of Christ was stronger than the terrible name of Rome. Ten fearful persecutions, in which all the vast power and resources of the mightiest empire of the earth were brought to bear with most malignant and terrific energy upon the rising sect, had passed, and yet it was not extinguished. The cruel Nero, the proud and perfidious Domitian, the superstitious Diocletian, in vain assailed it. The bodies of Christians were slaughtered in the streets; thrown alive into the arena of the amphitheatre, to be devoured by wild beasts; burned as torches to illuminate the public gardens; and subjected to tortures too horrible to mention. But Christianity still survived. Celsus, Porphyry, and Hierocles, attacked it by argument, by abuse, by satire, and denunciation; but it was still triumphant. ‘The Apologies’ of the Fathers were more than a match for the learning and wit of their opponents. Even Julian the Apostate, when he brought all the learning and all the skill of his philosophy, combined with all the power of the empire, to bear upon the religion which he had once embraced, and then disowned, was compelled to own in death that the Galilean had conquered—Christianity was triumphant. The temples of the idols became the churches of the worshippers of Jesus. The altars no longer smoked with the blood of sacrifices offered to love. And yet the _priests_ were there, clothed, like their pagan predecessors, in their sacred robes, and much of what was called the worship of Jehovah was wonderfully like what had once been called the worship of Jupiter. The Christian name was there, but the purity and the power of the religion of Christ had been lost; and those who were now called Christians, so soon as they were invested with _the power_, showed that they were quite as ready to torture and torment, to persecute and destroy, those who ventured to call in question _their_ authority, as the ancient Pagans had ever been.”

“Please tell us, Mr. Courtney, how this change was brought about. How was it that the disciples of Him who was another name for love, and who bade his followers to do good to them who hated them, and pray for those who persecuted them—how was it that they ceased to obey their Lord, and became themselves the murderers of their brethren?”

“When the religion of Christ,” replied Mr. Courtney, “became the _popular_ religion; when those who professed it were courted and flattered rather than imprisoned and killed; when nobles and emperors had espoused the cause of Christ, bad men united with that party for the sake of power and influence. When infant baptism (or, rather, the baptism of minors, for the baptism of _babes_ was not introduced till a later day;) had been adopted, and the only prerequisite for Church-membership was the ability to repeat, like a parrot, the words of a creed, and answer some questions of a catechism; when sincere repentance and a living faith in Christ had been dispensed with as terms of admission to the Churches, they soon came to be composed of unconverted men, who had no spiritual understanding of the gospel, and to whom religion was but an empty form, valuable only so far as it could be used or purposes of worldly aggrandizement. These Churches were no longer the assemblies of the disciples of Jesus. They had already ceased to be true Churches of Christ; they were mere companies of _worldly men_, who had no love for Jesus or his cause, and cared far less for the prosperity of _his_ kingdom than for their own promotion. The first step towards that fearful change by which Christ’s Church was driven out of sight, and an establishment having the same name, though consisting of a different sort of people, and organized under a very different constitution, and filled with rancorous hatred towards it, was the _loss of the independence of the local societies_. Christ, as we have seen, made each Church independent. It had none above it but himself alone. He was its Lord and Master; but it called no one master on the earth.

“But it happened very early (some time in the second century) that this wise arrangement began to be changed. In the large _cities_ the first Church that was organized began to take precedence of the others, which were formed, to some extent, under its superintendence. The process was very simple and very natural. There was a large and influential Church: it had in it a number of ministers, who were all called presbyters—that is, elders or bishops. Some one of these it chose to be its pastor. As the membership increased, it would become inconvenient for all to meet in the same place. They would consequently assemble for worship in different localities in the city; and it was but natural that they should request _him_ whom they all recognized as their _pastor_, and to whose Church they came to partake of the holy supper, and at whose hands they had received their baptism, to send them some elder to conduct their public worship. It was but natural that he should request some minister to go, and that he should even desire him to take the permanent charge, with the consent of all concerned, of this little interest. It was but natural that what was thus done as a matter of convenience and courtesy, should soon come to be regarded (among people so ignorant of Christianity as the first converts from Paganism must have been) as a matter of _right_, and founded in the original constitution of the Church. The new assembly still considered itself as an appendage to the first, and its minister was still subject to the pastor of the first as his pastor. And in time he was regarded as holding his place, not by the will of the people to whom he ministered, but by that of the pastor who had designated him to the work. A number of such outside assemblies would be formed: in each the same results would follow, from the influence of like causes. The pastor of the first and prominent Church would find himself, though having no immediate concern in their affairs, yet nominally the pastor of thousands of people, to whom he never ministered, but who were under the control of those who soon began to be styled _his_ presbyters, or inferior clergy; while he, by way of eminence, was called the ‘_episcopos_;’ that is, in plain English, ‘the overseer:’ a term which is employed several times in the New Testament, but always as synonymous with ‘_presbuteros_,’ or elder; as when Paul is said to have sent for the ‘_presbyters_,’ elders of the Church at Ephesus, and charged them to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit had made them ‘bishops’—rendered in our version, very properly, ‘overseers.’ Now, all this may have been very innocently done. The first of the pastors who thus acquired the control of other Churches than his own, may have been, and probably was, desirous, _not_ so much to extend his own power as to extend the conquests of religion. The influence which he exerted was probably much more dependent on his personal character than on his official position. The people _loved_ him, and were unwilling to be _entirely_ dissevered from his ministry. They offered him the spontaneous and unenforced subjection of willing hearts, and sought instruction and direction from him in their ecclesiastical affairs rather as a father in the Lord than as the _ruler_ over their consciences. But a generation passed away. What was at first mere courtesy had now become custom. His successor could demand, as a right, the control which the other had, perhaps, reluctantly retained. The bishop claimed the _right_ to designate the ministers to the secondary Churches; he claimed the right to control their discipline; he claimed as a right the _fees_ and revenues which began to accrue from various sources. He found himself in a place of power and influence. His control over so many thousands of people made his friendship important to political aspirants. He could be useful to the state; the state therefore confirmed his claims, and, if need be, enforced them by the secular power. The bishop and his diocese became a part of the apparatus of the empire, and his relations to the Churches were established by the civil laws. Here was the first error. The original simplicity of the Churches organization established by Christ and the apostles was lost, and the independent local Church was swallowed up in a _hierarchy_, or ecclesiastical establishment, consisting of all the Churches in a certain city, or province, or country, made subject, more or less completely, to one common head. Congregational independence was displaced, and episcopacy was set up in its stead. This was not done everywhere at once; nor was it _ever_ done by _all_ the Churches. Some there were who still refused subjection to any lord but Christ; and were for this the objects of the bitterest persecution on the part of those who had acknowledged the supremacy of the bishops, and formed alliance with the state.”

“Excuse me, gentlemen,” exclaimed the Bishop, who had come in after this conversation commenced, and had taken a seat apart from the little circle engaged in it, apparently with the determination to have no more to say in the discussion—“Excuse me, gentlemen, but I would like to know upon what _authority_ such statements as those to which I have just listened can possibly be based. The explanation of the pretended rise of Episcopacy is certainly very ingenious, and to me has been very entertaining, as will be, doubtless, the story of the innumerable evils of which it is, I discover, to be made the parent. And it seems almost a pity to spoil such a beautiful fabric by knocking the foundation out from under it; and that I fancy I can do by simply asking upon what it rests? For if any fact recorded in ecclesiastical history is certain, it is that the Church of Christ, from the earliest days, even from the time of the apostles themselves, was organized upon the Episcopal plan, and recognized three orders of the ministry: to the first of which (that is, the bishops) was given this exclusive authority to ordain to the ministry, and exercise the discipline of the Churches.”

“It is very easy,” replied Mr. Courtney, “to make confident assertions, and sometimes very difficult to sustain them by the only admissive testimony. You ask me upon what foundation I base my explanation of the rise of the Episcopacy, and by what authority I have made such statements concerning it. I will answer you frankly and freely.

“In the _first_ place, we have, by a careful study of this book, [laying his hand upon the Bible], ascertained that the Churches established by the apostles were independent, local Churches. There is no such thing as a hierarchy there. There is no Church mentioned there which subjected any other Church to itself, or became itself subject to any other. If, therefore, Churches became thus dependent and confederated in the apostles’ days, it must have been after the canon of the Scripture was closed.

“In the next place, it is, I believe, the _unanimous testimony_ of those who have written impartially the history of the first Churches, that they continued to be thus independent _at least_ until the second century.

“What says the learned Mosheim? ‘A bishop, during the first and second centuries, was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly, which at that time was generally small enough to be contained in a private house. In this assembly he acted, not so much with the authority of a _master_ as with the zeal and diligence of a faithful _servant_. He instructed the people, performed the several parts of Divine worship, attended the sick, and inspected into the circumstances and supplies of the poor.’ (See vol. i., _Ecclesiastical History_, pp 100⁠–⁠106.)

“But when he comes to speak of the third century, he says, ‘The face of things now began to change in the Christian Church. The ancient method of ecclesiastical government _seemed_ still to subsist in general, while at the same time, by imperceptible steps, it varied from the primitive rule and degenerated toward the form of a religious monarchy. For the bishops aspired to higher degrees of power than they had formerly possessed; and not only violated the rights of the _people_, but also made gradual encroachments on the privileges of the _presbyters_. And that they might cover these usurpations with an air of justice and an appearance of reason, _they published NEW DOCTRINES_ concerning the _nature of the Church_, and _the Episcopal dignity_. One of the principal authors of this change was _Cyprian_, (Bishop of Carthage,) who pleaded for the power of the bishops with more zeal and vehemence than had ever been hitherto employed in that cause. This change in the form of ecclesiastical government was soon followed by a train of vices which dishonored the character and authority of those to whom the administration of the Church was committed. For although several yet continued to exhibit to the world illustrious examples of primitive piety and Christian virtue, yet many were sunk in luxury and voluptuousness, puffed up with vanity, arrogance, and ambition, possessed with a spirit of contention and discord, and addicted to many other vices that cast an undeserved reproach upon the holy religion of which them were the unworthy professors and ministers.’ (Pages 265⁠–⁠267.)

“Concerning the _fourth_ century, the same learned historian speaks as follows: ‘The bishops, whose opulence and authority were considerably increased since the reign of Constantine, began gradually to introduce innovations into the form of ecclesiastical discipline, and to change the ancient government of the Church. The first step was the entire exclusion of the people from all part in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs; and afterwards, they by degrees divested even the presbyters of their ancient privileges, and their primitive rights, that they might have no importunate protestors to control their ambition or oppose their proceedings, and, principally, that they might either engross to themselves, or distribute as they thought proper, the possessions and revenues of the Church. Hence it came to pass that at the conclusion of the fourth century there remained no more than a mere shadow of the ancient government of the Church. Many of the privileges which had formerly belonged to the presbyters and people were usurped by the bishops; and many of the rights which had been formerly vested in the universal Church were transferred to the emperors and to subordinate officers and magistrates.’ (Page 348.)

“Similar to this is the testimony of Neander. He says—”

“But what does it matter in this dispute,” exclaimed the Bishop, “what such writers as Mosheim, or Neander, or Coleman, may assert? They are opposed to the Episcopacy. They wrote, in part at least, for the express purpose of bringing it into discredit. They, and such as they, are not disinterested, and, consequently, are not reliable witnesses.”

“I should be very sorry to believe,” replied the school master, “that such men could not relate the real facts of the history they profess to record, even though they _did_ believe that the existence and authority of diocesan bishops was an unauthorized innovation upon the original order of the Churches. But I am disposed to be very accommodating in regard to the ecclesiastical character of my witnesses. I have such a variety that I am sure I can satisfy the most fastidious taste. Suppose we pass by Neander and Coleman. You surely will not object to Gibbon—the author of the _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_. Mr. Gibbon says of the first and second centuries: ‘The public functions of religion were solely intrusted to the established ministers of the Church—the _bishops_ and the _presbyters_; two appellations which, in their first origin, appear to have distinguished the same _office_, and the _same order of persons_. The name of _presbyter_ was expressive of their age, or rather of then gravity or wisdom. The title of _bishop_ denoted their inspection over the faith and manners of the Christians who were committed to their pastoral care. In proportion to the respective numbers of the faithful, a larger or smaller number of these _Episcopal presbyters_ guided each infant congregation with equal authority and with united counsels.’

“In this we have a picture of one of the earliest Churches. It was an organized body of baptized believers, who had among them a number of members who, on account of their wisdom and gravity, were called presbyters, or elders; and to whom had been committed the general oversight of the membership; and they were on this account called _bishops_, or overseers. But Gibbon goes on to say that ‘The most perfect equality of freedom requires the directing hand of a superior magistrate, and the order of public deliberations soon introduces the office of a _president_, [or chairman,] invested at least with the authority of collecting the sentiments and of executing the resolutions or the assembly. A regard for the public tranquillity, which would so frequently have been interrupted by annual or by occasional elections, induced the primitive Christians to constitute an honorable and perpetual magistracy, and to choose one of the wisest and most holy among their presbyters to execute, during his life, the duties of their ecclesiastical governor; [that is, to make him perpetual president of their congregation; or, in other words, invest him with the pastorate.] It was under these circumstances,’ continues the historian, ‘that the lofty title of _bishop_ began to raise itself above the humble appellation of _presbyter_. And while the latter remained the most natural distinction for the members of every Christian senate, the former was appropriated to its new _president_. The pious and humble presbyters, who were first dignified with the Episcopal title, could not possess, and would probably have rejected, the power and pomp which now encircle the tiara of the Roman pontiff, or the mitre of a German prelate. The _primitive_ _bishops were considered only as the FIRST of their EQUALS_, and the honorable _servants_ of a free people. Whenever the Episcopal chair became vacant by death, a new president was chosen among the presbyters, _by the suffrage OF THE WHOLE CONGREGATION_. Such was the mild and equal constitution by which the Christians were governed more than a hundred years after the death of the apostles.’ (_Decline and Fall_, vol. ii., pp. 272, 275.)

“Here is, according to Gibbon, whom you will admit to be an impartial witness, a direct assertion of the fact that the elders and bishops were at first the same, and, for more than a hundred years after the apostles had died, there was no other distinction between them, except that the title of bishop began to be appropriated exclusively to _that_ presbyter whom some Church had chosen, by the vote of the whole congregation, to _preside_ in their meetings and execute their decisions. But now, when he comes to speak of the _third_ century, he presents a different picture:

“‘As the legislative authority of the particular Churches was insensibly superseded by the use of councils, the bishops obtained by their alliance a much larger share of executive and arbitrary power. And, as coon as they were connected by a sense of their common interest, they were enabled to attack, with united vigor, the original rights of the clergy and people. The prelates of the third century imperceptibly changed the language of _exhortation_ to that of _command_, scattered the seeds of future usurpations, and supplied, by Scripture allegories and declamatory rhetoric, their deficiency of force and reason. They exalted the unity and power of the Church, as it was represented in the Episcopal office, of which every bishop enjoyed an equal and undivided portion. Princes and magistrates, it was often repeated, might boast an earthly claim to a transitory dominion. It was the Episcopal authority alone that was derived from the Deity, and extended itself over this and another world. Bishops were the vicegerents of Christ, the successors of the apostles, and the mystic substitutes of the high-priest of the Mosaic law. Their exclusive privilege of conferring the sacerdotal character invaded the freedom both of the clerical and popular elections. And if, in the administration of the Church, they sometimes consulted the judgment of the presbyters, or the inclination of the people, they most carefully inculcated the merit of such a voluntary condescension.’ (Vol. 1, pp. 276, 277.)

“Surely Mr. Gibbon sustains substantially what I asserted. The Church is at first a local society, governed by several presbyters. One of these is presently selected by the whole congregation to preside over their deliberations, and execute their will. To him, in time, the title of bishop, which had at first been given to all the presbyters, becomes specially appropriated. But yet, though a bishop, he is bishop only of the one local society, and is among them rather a servant than a ruler. This continues till the third century. Then the bishops begin to combine to elevate the Episcopal office. Then they begin to change the language of exhortation to that of command. Then, so far from regarding themselves as the _servants_ of Christ’s people, they claim to be successors of the apostles and vicegerents of Christ himself.”

“But,” replied the Bishop, “you must be well aware that Gibbon was an infidel, and an enemy to the Christian religion; and, consequently, not the most reliable authority in matters of ecclesiastical polity.”

“Certainly, sir; and I would not have thought of referring to him if he had not been; and that in regard to this very point most fully endorsed by Dr. Haweis, one of your own most eminent divines, and the historian of your own Church. Dr. Haweis says, ‘Where no immediate bias to distort the truth leaves him an impartial witness, I will quote Gibbon with pleasure. I am conscious that his authority is more likely to weigh with the world in general than mine; _I will therefore simply repeat his account of the primitive Church_; I think we shall not _on this point_ greatly differ.’ (_Eccl. Hist._, vol 1, p. 414.)

“But, if you object to Gibbon, even thus endorsed and vouched for, I am disposed to be accommodating. I will give you testimony from the Episcopal Church of England. Nay, I will go back and call the ancient Fathers from their graves, and they shall testify.

“What say you to the statements of your own Episcopal Bowdler? ‘I am aware,’ he says in his letters, ‘that in St. Jerome’s time there existed generally, though by no means universally, this difference between the bishop and the presbyters, namely, that to the former was then confided the power of ordination. The transition from perfect equality to absolute superiority was not suddenly effected. It was the growth of time—not of years, but of centuries; the distinction of authority, or _office_, preceding that of order, or decree in the Church, and being introductory to it. With the former (the distinction in _office_) I have no concern; it being sufficient to show that, as a distinct and superior order in the Church, Episcopacy, in the modern acceptation of the term, _did not exist_ in the time of the apostles; and that, however expedient and desirable such un institution might be, it cannot plead the sanction of apostolic appointment or example. It may be difficult to fix the period exactly when the Episcopate was first recognized as a distinct _order_ in the Church, and when the consecration of bishops, _as such_, came into general thus. Clearly not, I think, when St. Jerome wrote. This much, at least, is _certain_, namely, that the government of each Church, including the ordination of ministers, was at first in the hands of the presbytery, [the company of elders embraced in its numbers;] that when one of that body was raised to the office of president, and on whom the title of bishop was conferred, it was simply by the election (_co-optatio_) of the other presbyters, whose appointment was final, requiring no confirmation or consecration at the hands of any other prelates; _and that each Church was essentially independent_ of every other.’

“But Bowdler, I know, though an Episcopalian, was a layman; and perhaps, as you are disposed to be so very particular about the ecclesiastical relations of your witnesses, you may prefer the testimony of a bishop; nay, of an archbishop, and be one of the most eminent for his learning and logic. What says Archbishop Whateley upon this subject? Does he deny that the first Churches were independent, and the first bishops were bishops or pastors of only a single local society? ‘Though there was,’ he says, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism, for all of these, yet _they were each a distinct, independent community_ on earth; united by the common principles on which they were founded, by their mutual agreement, affection, and respect; but _not_ having any one recognized head on earth, or acknowledging any sovereignty one of those societies over others. Each bishop originally presided over one entire Church.’ (_Kingdom of Christ_.)

“And, if it will not seem wrong to come down from the nigh place of the archbishop to the stand of a simple minister, what will you say to the testimony of that learned and eminent Episcopal divine, John Edwards, D.D., who, after a careful exposition of the teachings of the Fathers upon this subject, thus concludes: ‘From all these we may gather that the Scripture bishop was the chief of the _presbyters_, but he was not of a distinct _order_ from them; and as for the times after the apostles, none of these writers, [Clement, Ignatius, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, etc.,] nor any ecclesiastical historian, tells us that an order superior to presbyters was set over the presbyters. It is true, one single person recorded to have presided over the college of presbyters; but this college had the same power with the single person, though not the particular dignity of the presidentship. The short is, the _bishops_ in these times were presbyters; only he that presided over the body of presbyters was called bishop, while the rest were generally known by the title of presbyters; and the bishop was still but a presbyter, as to _order_ and function; though, for distinction’s sake, he was known by the name of _bishop_. He was superior to the other presbyters so long as he executed his office; just as a chairman in a committee is above the rest of the justices, whilst he holds that place. It was generally the most ancient presbyter that was chosen to preside over the college of presbyters; but he had no superiority of authority. All the priority or primacy he had was that of order. Here is the ancient pattern. Why was it not followed? To single Fathers we may add council, who deliver the same sense. This, then, is the true account of the matter. Bishops were elders, or presbyters; and, therefore, of the same order. But the bishops differed from the presbyters in this _only_: that they were chosen by the elders to preside over them at their ecclesiastical meetings or assemblies. But, in after ages, the presbyters of some Churches parted with their liberty and right, and agreed among themselves that ecclesiastical matters should be managed by the bishop only.’ (_Edwards’s Remains_, p. 253.)

“So also the famous Bishop Burnet says expressly, ‘I acknowledge bishop and presbyter to be _one_; and so plead for no new office-bearer in the Church. The first branch of their power is their authority to publish the gospel, to manage the worship, and dispense the sacraments; and _this is all that is of Divine right_ in the ministry, in which the _bishops_ and _presbyters_ are _equal_ sharers. But, besides this, the Church claimeth a power of jurisdiction, of making rules for discipline, and applying and executing the same; all of which is, indeed suitable to the common laws of society, and the general rules of Scripture, but hath no positive warrant from any Scripture precept. And all these constitutions of Churches into synods; and the canons of discipline taking their rise from the division of the world into several provinces, beginning in the second or beginning of the third century, do clearly show that they can be derived from no Divine original; and so were, as to their form, but mere human institutions.’

“But I will not fatigue you. This is enough from the English Church; though but a specimen of what remains on record. It is possible you may not be quite pleased with even these witnesses, though they be your own brethren. They get their information from the Fathers. We can go to the same source. To them you can surely have no objection.”

“Excuse me for interrupting you,” said Theodosia; “but I am a little bewildered. I do not understand precisely what a discussion on Episcopacy has to do with the Church of Rome. I have been accustomed to associate the word _Episcopal_ with the Church of England and the Methodists; but not with the Roman Catholics.”

“Perhaps,” replied Mr. Courtney, “I should have explained before, that our word Episcopal is formed from the Greek word ‘_Episcopos_,’ which signifies an overseer. It is sometimes so rendered in the New Testament, and sometimes it is rendered bishop; which is, in fact, only the English form of the same word. It is said by some, who profess to have traced the several steps by which _Episcopos_ became bishop, that it first lost the prefix ‘_E_,’ and was pronounced ‘_Piscopos_;’ then the affix ‘us,’ and was called ‘_Piscop_;’ then, by a common transition, ‘P’ became ‘B,’ and it was ‘_Biscop_.’ Then the ‘c’ was changed to ‘h,’ and it became our common word, bishop. So you see that Episcopal is the same as Bishopical if there were only such a word. The Episcopal Church is the Bishopical Church; that is, the Church that is governed by bishops. So the Methodist Episcopal Church is that portion of the Methodist denomination which is subject to bishops, as distinguished from the Protestant or Independent Methodists, who refuse to acknowledge their authority. Now it is the peculiar characteristic of the Episcopal and Methodist Churches, that they are controlled by bishops; but they have both inherited this peculiarity in consequence of their regular descent from Rome. It is a part of the system of Popery, which they have retained.

“You inquired, some time since, by what process these which had been the Churches of Jesus became the persecutors of his people? I replied, that the first step seems to have been taken by giving up their _independence_ as separate, local organizations, and becoming united in a hierarchy, in which they were subject to bishops; or, in other words, it was the setting up of the Episcopacy.

“Our friend here took issue with me upon this point, and assured us that it was as certain as any historical fact could be, that no such change from independence to Episcopacy had ever been made, since the Episcopacy existed from the very first, and was the order which was established by Christ and the apostles.

“I have been trying to convince him that did not speak without authority when I said the change was made; and described briefly the manner in which it was brought about. If any reliance is to be placed on the testimony of men who, like the Magdeburg Centuriators, Mosheim, Neander, and other ecclesiastical historians, have made Christian antiquities the object of their most laborious and careful investigation, my statements are fully sustained. But, as some of these way have been suspected of some latent aversion to Episcopacy, I have quoted Episcopalians, stating the same things. And now I propose to bring up the testimony of the Fathers, as they are called; that is, those Christian writer whose works have escaped the tooth of all-devouring time and have come down to us from the very days when this change was made. These, after all, must decide the question; for modern historians and divines can only tell us what, in their opinion, the Fathers did actually say upon the subject.”

“But, Mr. Courtney, why can we not decide this question by the _Scriptures_? If we cannot find Episcopacy in the Scriptures, it must, as a matter of course, have been introduced after they were written; or, _if introduced before_, must be without any binding authority on us. I don’t like to be dependent on mere _human_ testimony, when we have the infallible Word for our guide.”

“We have already ascertained, madam, that the _Scripture_ Churches were _independent_ Churches: that each one had in itself all that was needful to make it a complete Church; and that, so far from being subject to the rule of a bishop from without, it was itself the administrator of Christ’s laws; and, such, had the making, and, if need be, the unmaking, of bishops in its hands. The bishops were its servants, not its masters.”

“Then you admit that the Scripture Churches _had_ bishops?”

“Surely they had. So for as practicable, every Church had its bishop, and some of tuna had several bishops. Every minister who hod the charge—the oversight—of a Church, either exclusively to himself, or in conjunction with other ministers, was, according to the Scriptures, designated a bishop. There were plenty of Bishops; there were as many bishops as there were pastors; and, in a certain sense, the Churches were _subject_ to their bishops. But no Church was subject to any bishop but _her own_, chosen by herself to conduct her worship and _preside_ in her business meetings.”

“I see now how it was,” said Theodosia; “and begin to understand the reason why my mind has all the time been confused. The word bishop, in the New Testament, means one thing, and in modern English another, and a very different thing. Then, a bishop was the simple pastor of a Church. Now, he is the ruler of a diocese, including all the Churches in a certain province, state, or district of country.”

“Precisely so,” said Mr. Courtney. But the change is not merely in the number of Churches subjected to his supervision; but in the nature of the relation which he sustains to them. Then the bishop was chosen from their own members by the Church to be her pastor. Now the bishop is created by some power outside the Church; and _he_ chooses a pastor for the Church, and sends him to her, whether she desire it or not. Then the Church received herself those whom she thought worthy of membership. Now, the members can only be received by the bishop, or his deputy, the priest or minister in charge. Then the Church exercised the needful discipline upon her own members, reproving, suspending, excluding, or restoring, as the executive and judiciary of Christ; but now all this is done without her voice, by the bishop or his representatives. The Church, which was the independent executive of Christ the King, has become the abject dependent of a man-made master. Now, we were inquiring _how this change was brought about_? I have given you the testimony of Mosheim and of Gibbon. I might have given you that of Neander, Schaff, Coleman, and Bunsen; and, in fact, of almost every author of ecclesiastical history who has gone back to this early day, and given a picture of the first Churches in this particular. They all agree that the Church, at first, was a local, independent society, or organization, and that the bishop was but the pastor of one of these Churches in regard to the distinction between the presbyters and bishops, some regard these as but two different words for the same thing. Some think that when there were more elders than one, which seems generally to have been the case, one of them was chosen to preside in their meetings, and he was called bishop. But he was still only the president, or bishop, of that local Church. All agree that, at an early day, when mission Churches, so to speak, began to grow up around some principal Church, the bishop of that Church began to be considered the bishop of the subordinate Churches, and these Churches subject to the control of that first established; and thus the foundation was laid for that system of despotism which has since so utterly destroyed the original freedom of all those Churches which have become subject to the bishops, whether in the Grecian, the Roman, the English, or the Methodist communions.

“I have said that the general correctness of this view was conceded by many eminent Episcopalians themselves, the testimony of some of whom I have repeated. And now, I will show you from the Fathers themselves that such a change as I have asserted was actually made. It has been customary for the advocates of the Divine origin of Episcopacy to appeal with great confidence to the testimony of the Fathers. One of them writes as follows: ‘Is it not reasonable to suppose that the primitive Fathers of the Church must have been well acquainted with the mode of ecclesiastical government established by Christ and his apostles? Now, _their_ testimony is _universally_ in our favor. What course, then, have the enemies of Episcopacy for the most part pursued? Why, they have endeavored, by every art of misrepresentation, to invalidate this testimony of the Fathers.’ If others have done so, I will not. Let the testimony of the Fathers stand for all it is worth. I welcome them as the best of witnesses as to what existed and as to what transpired in their days. But I will not believe that the Church of Christ is to be any thing different from that which we can find in the Scriptures, even on the testimony of the Fathers, and martyrs besides. The Bible for me, before all the Fathers that ever wrote, and all the martyrs that ever bled. So, after I have found the scriptural Church to be a local and independent body, I will not change it into a hierarchy, though every Father and every martyr in the catalogue should unite in testifying that in their day it was a hierarchy. If _Christ_ set up the hierarchy, and makes it binding on his people, we should have the record of it in his Word. If _men_ set it up, without his authority, I do not care how _early_ they did it, nor how many or clear the testimonies that it was set up. My Church must be the Church of Christ, and not of the Fathers. If the Fathers testify that Christ laid down the plan of the hierarchy in the Scriptures, I would simply say, I can and must examine the Scriptures for myself. If I _cannot find it there_, I cannot believe _it is_ there. If the Fathers merely assert that it existed in their _day_, I in ready to admit it, and let the advocates of the bishops make the most they can out of it. What if it did exist? Its existence is nothing, unless it can be shown that it existed by the authority of the Master.”

“Its existence,” replied the Bishop, who had listened with great apparent indifference to this long speech of the schoolmaster—“its existence in the days of the Fathers proves that it _began_ before their days. And since some of them had seen and conversed with the apostles, it follows that it must have begun in the times of the apostles. And if it began in their day, and we find no expression of their disapprobation, it must be conceded that it had their sanction and authority.”

“I am willing to grant all that,” said Mr. Courtney; “and if you will show me that the hierarchy had been established, and that _prelatical_ bishops, _diocesan_ bishops, or any other bishops than those spoken of in the New Testament, who were, as we have seen, the bishops of a single congregation or one local Church, were in existence during the lifetime of any of the Fathers who had spoken with the apostles, I will yield the point, and admit that the apostles taught one thing in their writings, and sanctioned its opposite in their practice. Nay, I will go farther—I will yield it if you will show me such a prelatical bishop any time before the beginning of the third century, or before the _change_ of which I have been talking so much had taken place. I know very well that Clement of Rome, who lived towards the last of the first century, and who, it is supposed, had conversed with Peter and Paul, wrote an epistle to the Church at Corinth, in which he mentions bishops, and deacons, and presbyters. So the New Testament, in a variety of places, speaks of bishops, deacons, and presbyters. The question is, Who were _these_ bishops? Paul sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders, that is, the presbyters of _that_ Church, and said to them at parting, ‘Take heed to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you _bishops_.’ Did not Paul mean the _same persons_, by bishops, whom Luke calls presbyters or elders? They were but two different titles for the same officers. If they were prelatical bishops, then there were several prelatical bishops in the one city.

“So Paul, writing to Titus, says, that he left him in Crete, among other things, that he might ordain them elders—‘_Presbuteros_’—in every city; and then goes on to give him instruction concerning the qualifications for the office, and tells him a bishop—_Episcopos_—must be blameless as the steward of God.

“When he writes to Timothy on the same subject, he mentions only deacons and _bishops_; but says not a word about the presbyters. Yet he was instructing him in regard to the officers of a Church. Presbyters, therefore, must be included in the term bishop; for it is evident he did not mean to overlook them, since he mentions them expressly afterwards in the same epistle.

“But if this leave any doubt, it must to removed by what he says to the Philippians: ‘To the saints which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.’ ‘How is this?’ says Chrysostom, one of the Fathers. ‘Were there many bishops in the same city? By no means; but he calls the _presbyters_ by this name, (_bishops_,) for at that time this was the common appellation of both.’

“So Peter exhorts the presbyters to feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof—literally, bishoping it—(_Episcopountes_.) The presbyters are called bishops; they are to have the same qualifications, and are to perform the same duties. It is as clear as it can be made that the two terms are employed indiscriminately, and are entirely synonymous. Now, as the Scriptures thus employ the word bishop so do the earliest Fathers. The bishops Clement speaks of are therefore simple presbyters.

“Hermas, also of Rome, is the next of the Fathers commonly quoted on this subject. He too speaks of those who preside over the Church: ‘Thou shalt say to those who preside over the Church that they order their ways in righteousness, that they may fully receive the promise in much glory.’

“Now, who are these why preside over the Church? They are the presbyters; for he says, further on, ‘After this I saw a vision at home, in my own house; and the old woman whom I had seen before came to me, and asked me if I had yet delivered her book to the _elders_, (presbyters;) and I answered that I had not yet. She replied, Thou hast done well, for I have certain more words to tell thee; and when I have finished all the words, they shall be clearly understood by the elect. And thou shalt write two books, and send one to Clement, and one to Grapte. For Clement shall send it to the foreign cities, because it is permitted him to do so. But Grapte shall admonish the widows and orphans. But thou shalt read in this city with _the elders who preside over the Church_.’ Whether these presiding officers were benefited by the admonitions of the old woman’s book or not, it is certain they were _elders_. And in another place, he expressly calls them bishops. ‘For what concerns the tenth mountain, on which were the trees covering the cattle, they are such as have believed, and some of them have been BISHOPS; _that is_, PRESIDENTS OF THE CHURCHES.’

“The next in order of the earliest Fathers is Polycarp. He never employs the word bishop; but often speaks of the elders, or presbyters, and deacons. He uses such language concerning the presbyters as to show that they were the presidents of the Church. ‘Let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful towards all, turning them from their errors, seeking out those who are weak, not forgetting the widows, the fatherless, and the poor; abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons, and unrighteous judgment; not easy to believe any thing against any; _nor severe in judgment_, knowing that we are all debtors in point of law.’

“Paphias, who was a companion of Polycarp, and a disciple of John, in a fragment of his writings preserved by Eusebius, calls the apostles _presbyters_, as they sometimes called themselves; but makes no mention of bishops. ‘I shall not think it grievous,’ he says, ‘to set down in writing the things which I have learned of the _presbyters_: what _Andrew_, what _Peter_, what _Philip_, what _Thomas_, or _James_ had said; what _John_, or _Matthew_, or any other disciples of the Lord were wont to say; and what _Ariston_ or _John_ the presbyter said. For I am of the mind that I could not profit so much by reading books, as by attending to those who spake with the living voice.’

“Irenæus, who suffered martyrdom early in the third century, and wrote towards the close of the second, speaks as Clement and Hermas had done, of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. We do net deny this, but we ask, What did he mean by bishops? What sort of bishops were they? Were they scriptural bishops, or prelatical bishops? Were these bishops not pastors of single Churches, but lords over all the Churches in a certain diocese or district? It is enough to say that he, like Paul, employs the words presbyter and bishop indiscriminately, to signify the very same persons and officers. In one place he says, ‘We can enumerate those who were constituted _bishops_ by the apostles in the Churches, and their successors even to us.’

“In another, ‘Obey those _presbyters_ in the Church who have the succession, as we have shown, from the apostles; who with the succession of the episcopate [_or bishopric_] received the gift of truth.’

“He mentions by name those who had governed the Church of Rome from the first down to his own time; and says, they had the _episcopate_. And, in another place, he mentions them again by name, and calls them _presbyters_.

“Justin Martyr, who lived in the second century, in the famous apology which he wrote to the emperor, speaks several times of the president: ‘The president having given thanks:’ ‘the president delivers a discourse,’ etc. Now, as he was giving an account of each Christian congregation, it is evident that each one had its own president; and if the president was the bishop, it follows that every Church had its own bishop; or, in other words, the bishop was simply the pastor. Clement of Alexandria speaks of deacons, presbyters, and bishops; but he also uses the word bishop in the same sense. He says that on a certain occasion the Apostle John gave a certain young man into the charge of a particular _bishop_, and that the _presbyter_ [meaning the same man] took him home to his own house, nourished, comforted, cherished, and at length baptized him.”

“I have purposely abstained from interrupting your disquisition,” said the Bishop, “because I do not wish or intend to enter into an argument under existing circumstances; but I will take the liberty merely to rewind you that you have omitted all mention of that Father on whom the advocates of the Episcopacy most confidently rely.”

“I know I have,” said Mr. Courtney. “I left him till the last, because he will require some peculiar treatment. The epistles of Ignatius have ever been the stronghold of Episcopacy; and some have concluded that it was on this account that their genuineness has been so often called in question. But this cannot be given as the reason why Dr. Hammond, himself a zealous son of the Church, speaking of some of the evident interpolations of these epistles, should have said that they were ‘senseless,’ ‘extravagant,’ and evidently the work of some ‘impostor.’ This could not be the reason why an earnest advocate of the prelacy should say of them, ‘that these compositions will surely not be alleged by any capable and candid advocate for primitive Episcopacy, without great hesitation—by many they will be entirely rejected.’”

“I have heard much,” said the Doctor, “of these epistles; and yet I have rather an indistinct conception of what they are, and what depends upon them.”

“The epistles of Ignatius,” said the schoolmaster, “when they first appeared, were eleven in number; and soon after, another was added; and, after a time, three more, making the whole number fifteen. Archbishop Wake translated them, and attempted to ascertain which of them were genuine. He says, ‘To pass by the first and most imperfect [edition] of them, the best that for a long time was extant contained not only a great number of epistles falsely ascribed to this author, but even those that were genuine so altered and corrupted that it is hard to find the true Ignatius in them.

“‘The first that began to remedy this confusion, and to restore this great writer to his primitive simplicity, was our most reverend and learned Archbishop Usher, in his edition of them at Oxford, 1644.’ Usher conceived that six of them were genuine. Wake accepted seven, though he does not deny that the seventh is very suspicious. These six or seven are all that Protestants now ever quote in this controversy. On these the cause of Episcopacy is made to rest, so far as the authority of Ignatius can give it any support.

“But it has happened recently that new materials for criticism have been brought to light; and by their aid, the accomplished Chevalier Bunsen has been able to determine, beyond all reasonable doubt, that four of these seven were forgeries, and the other three had been greatly interpolated. And that, when the writings of Ignatius alone remain, they give no sort of support to any other Episcopacy than that which finds a bishop in the pastor of every Church. Indeed, there are some who were willing to grant the genuineness of all the seven, and yet would undertake to show that, however often they might speak of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, they meant no more in any place by bishops than the _president_ of a single Church, which meaning it is certain that the word acquired at a very early day. Thus the eminent Doctor, afterwards Bishop, Stillingfleet, himself a dignitary of the Church, expressly says: ‘Of all the thirty-five testimonies produced out of Ignatius, in his epistle for the Episcopacy, I can meet with but _one_ which is brought to prove the least semblance of an institution of Christ for Episcopacy; and, if I be not much deceived, the sense of _that_ place is clearly mistaken.’ (_Irenicum_.)

“In fact, all that is said of bishops in these epistles is entirely consistent with the idea that he was the simple pastor of a local Church, in which there were other elders, or _presbyters_, who were in some sort associated with him in the management of the Church, yet recognized him as their president, or moderator, in all their assemblies.

“These if not all the Fathers of the first and second centuries whose testimony is relied upon, are certainly those most relied upon. If they used the word bishop in the _scriptural_ sense—the sense in which they had received it—then they must mean by a bishop no more than a pastor, a presbyter, having the charge of a congregation. If they use it in the sense which it acquired soon after the apostles, then they mean by it that presbyter who was chosen by the others and his Church to preside in their meetings. In one or the other of these senses they always used it. In no case did they mean by it a _prelatical_ bishop; that is, a bishop having the exclusive power of ordination and of discipline—not in one Church alone, but over all within a certain _diocese_. They had no idea of _such_ a bishop: such a one had not yet existed. There was as yet no Church which was subject to the rule of any other bishop than the one whom she had chosen. Theodoret, Cyprian, Augustine, and others, who lived in later times, represented the power of the bishop as already established. The Church had lost her independence. Jerome explains how it was done. He lived in the latter part of the fourth century, and after the hierarchy had been set up and established, but before men had forgotten that it had come in the place of something else. He was the most learned of all the Fathers, and one of the most eloquent of men. Nothing can be more plain and explicit than his testimony on this subject. Hear what he says in his commentary on the epistle to Titus ‘Let us attend carefully to the words of the apostle, saying, _that thou mayest ordain elders in every city, as I have appointed thee_; who, discoursing in what follows what sort of presbyter is to be ordained, saith, “If any one be blameless, the husband of one wife,” etc., afterwards adds, “For a _bishop_ must be blameless, as the steward of God.” A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop. And before there were, by the devil’s instinct, parties in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common council of presbyters. But afterwards, when every one thought that those whom he had baptized were rather his than Christ’s, it was determined by the whole world that _one_ of the presbyters should be set above the rest, to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schism might be taken away. If any suppose that this is our opinion, and not that of the Scriptures, that bishops and presbyters are the same, and that one is the name of age, and the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, “_Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the BISHOPS AND DEACONS_.” _Philippi_ is a city of _Macedonia_; and certainly in one city there could not be more than _one_ bishop, as they are now styled. But at that time they called the same men _bishops_ whom they called _presbyters_. Therefore he speaks indifferently of bishops as of presbyters. This may seem, even yet, doubtful to some, till it be proved by another testimony. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that when the apostle came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus, and called the presbyters of that Church, to whom, among other things, he said, “Take heed to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you _bishops_, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Here observe diligently, that calling together the presbyters of one city, Ephesus, he afterwards styles the same persons bishops. If any will receive that epistle which is written in the name of Paul to the Hebrews, there also the care of the Church is equally divided among many; since he writes to the people, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as those that must give an account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you.” And Peter, (so called from the firmness of his faith,) in his epistle, saith, “The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ; and also a partaker of the glory which shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you; not by constraint, but willingly.” These things have I written to show that among the ancients presbyters and bishops were the very same. But by little and little, that the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the whole care was devolved on one. As, therefore, the presbyters know that by _the custom of the Church_ [not by the authority of Christ] they are subject to him who is their president, so let the _bishops_ know that _they_ are above presbyters, more by the custom of the Church than by the true dispensation of Christ; and that they ought to rule the Church in common, imitating Moses, who, when he might alone rule the people of Israel, chose seventy, with whom he might judge the people.’

“Such is the testimony of this most learned Father, after the change was made. He says the bishops of his day _knew_ that they were above the presbyters, not by the command of Christ, not by the original constitution of the Church, but that, little by little, the chance had been brought in by the custom of the Church. To the same purpose, and, if possible, still more explicit, in _his letter to EVAGRIUS_: ‘I hear that a certain person has broken out into such folly, that he prefers deacons before _presbyters_—that is, before _bishops_. For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters and bishops were the same, who can endure it that a minister of tables and widows should proudly exalt himself above those at whose prayers the body and blood of Christ is made? Do you seek for authority? Hear that testimony: “_Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons._” Would you have another example? In the Acts of the Apostles Paul speaks thus to the priests of one Church: “_Take heed_ _to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops: that you govern the Church, which he hath purchased with his own blood._” And, lest any should contend about there being a plurality of bishops in one Church, hear also another testimony, by which it may most manifestly be proved that a bishop and presbyter are the same: “_For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I have appointed thee. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife_,” etc. “For _a_ BISHOP _must_ be blameless, as the steward of God.” And to Timothy: “_Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, by the laying on of the hands of the PRESBYTERY._” And Peter also, in his first epistle, saith, “_The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am also a_ PRESBYTER, _and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed, to rule the flock of Christ, and to inspect it, not of constraint, but willingly, according to God._” Which is more significantly expressed in the Greek _Episcopountes_—that is, superintending it, whence the name of bishop is drawn.

“‘Do the testimonies of such men seem small to thee? Let the evangelical trumpet sound the son of thunder, whom Jesus loved much, who drank the streams of doctrine from our Saviour’s breast: “_The presbyter to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth._” And in another epistle: “_The presbyter to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth._” But that one was afterwards chosen who should be set above the rest, was done as a remedy against schism, lest every one, drawing the Church of Christ to himself, should break it in pieces. For at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist to Heraclas and Dionysius, the bishops thereof, the presbyters always named one chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher degree bishop; as if an army should make an emperor, or the deacons should choose one of themselves whom they knew to be most diligent, and call him archdeacon.’

“This,” continued the schoolmaster, “was what one who has since been called a _saint_, and who deserved the title better than most of those so named, said about the origin of the bishop government in the Church more than fourteen hundred years ago.”

“Perhaps,” suggested Theodosia, “he was peculiar in his opinions, and differed from all others of his time.”

“So far from it, madam, we find the very same information in the writings of most of his contemporaries, whose works have survived the destruction of the dark ages which followed; not indeed so formally, but quite as unmistakably, announced.

“Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, writing to this same Jerome, who was only a presbyter, uses the following language: ‘I entreat you to correct me faithfully, when you see I need it; for although, according to the _names of honor which the custom of the Church has NOW_ brought into use, the office of bishop is greater than that of presbyter; nevertheless, Augustine is, in many respects, inferior to Jerome.’

“Bishop Jewel, in his defence of his apology for the Church of England; refers to this passage, to show that bishops and presbyters were originally the same; and thus translates it: ‘The office of bishop is above the office of priest, not by authority of the Scriptures, but after the names of honor which the custom of the Church hath now obtained.’ St. Ambrose, sometimes called St. Hilary, who lived and wrote at the same time, says, ‘After that Churches were planted in all places, and officers ordained, _matters were settled otherwise than they were in the beginning_. And hence it is that the apostle’s writings do not in all things agree to the present constitution of the Church, [A. D. 376,] because they were written under the first rise of the Church; for he calls Timothy, who was created a _presbyter_ by him, a _bishop_, FOR SO AT FIRST THE PRESBYTERS WERE CALLED. Among whom this was the course of governing Churches—that, as one withdrew, another took his place. And in Egypt, even to this day, the presbyters ordain in the bishop’s absence. But, because the succeeding presbyters began to be found unworthy to hold the first place, the method _was changed_, the council providing that not order, but merit, should create a bishop.’

“Chrysostom was another Father who lived and wrote about the same time, or somewhat later. Here is what he says, in his homily on the Epistle to Timothy: ‘The apostle having discoursed concerning the _bishops_, and described them, declaring what they ought to be, and from what they ought to abstain, omitting the order of _presbyters_, descends to the _deacons_. And why so? Because between bishop and presbyter there is scarcely any difference. And to them [the presbyters] is committed both the _instructions_ and the PRESIDENCY of the Church; and whatever he said of _bishops_ agrees also to presbyters. In _ordination alone_ have they gone beyond the presbyters, and of this they seem to have _defrauded_ them.’

“Theodoret, who wrote somewhat later still—early in the fifth century—commenting on the same passage, says, ‘The apostles call a presbyter a bishop, as we showed when we expounded the Epistle to the Philippians, and which may also be learned from this place; for, after the precepts proper to bishops, he describes the things that belong to deacons. But, as I have said, they _of old_ called the _same men_ both bishops and presbyters.’

“So also others; but these are enough for our purpose, and perhaps too much for the patience of our friends.”

“But let me ask,” said Doctor Thinkwell, “if these same writers are not all referred to by the advocates of the Episcopacy, as admitting its existence and advocating its claims?”

“What if they are? They _did_ admit its existence; and some of them were themselves a part of it. They _did_ approve it, at least so far as to exercise the Episcopal authority themselves, or to submit to it in others. There is no difficulty in proving this; but what of it? Our question is not whether this rule of the bishops existed _then_; but whether it _had_ existed from the first? and whether its existence then was not the result of a _change_ in the original constitution of the Churches?

“I grant that there were bishops in the days of Jerome, and of Eusebius, the historian, who lived before Jerome. I grant that, in their day, the bishops were a higher order than the other clergy. I grant that the Churches were then _ruled by the bishops_. I grant that Eusebius gives us catalogues of the bishops whom he says had succeeded each other from the days of the apostles. But I say that the bishop of that day was not the bishop of the apostles’ days. He is called by the same _name_, but he is not the same _thing_; and this I have proved by these Fathers themselves. It is just so with baptism. Christ’s baptism was immersion. The Church of Rome has set aside immersion, and substituted pouring or sprinkling, and called this act baptism. The name is the same, but the thing is changed. It is just so with the Lord’s Supper. The Church of Rome gives a bit of consecrated wafer to her communicants, but withholds the wine. The Supper instituted by our Lord was both bread and wine. She has _changed_ the ordinance, but calls it by the same name. So it is in regard to deacons. The deacon of the New Testament and the first Churches was one appointed to attend to the _secular_ affairs of the Church. As Jerome says, he was ‘the servant of tables and widows.’ But the Church of Rome and the Church of England have made him a minister of the word, and yet call him by the same name. Here is the fallacy by which the simple and incautious are entrapped and deluded. It is the thing, and not the name, that we must look after. There is now, in some _ecclesiastical establishments_, called Churches, a class of officers called _bishops_; and there was in the Churches _of Christ_, as established by the apostles, a class of officers called _bishops_. Of this there is no doubt. But then, the modern bishop is _one_ thing, and the _scriptural_ bishop was another and a very _different_ thing. The scriptural bishop was a simple pastor of a single Church, or sometimes the joint pastor, with several others, all his equals in rank, all called presbyters, and all called bishops, as in the address of Paul to those of Ephesus. The modern bishop is _not_ the pastor of a single Church, jointly with others, or by himself alone. He is a _prelate_: counts other ministers his inferiors, and lords it over all the Churches in a diocese. The ancient bishop was the _servant_ of a single Church: the modern is the _master_ of many Churches. The ancient bishop was at first identical with the presbyter or elder. And even after the first distinction was made, when _that elder_, who was chosen, for the sake of order, to _preside_ in the Church-meetings, was called _bishop_, he was still only the equal of his brother presbyters, the fellow-servant with them of the single Church to which they all belonged. But the modern bishop is the master of the _elders_, as well as of the Churches. He says to one, Go, and he goeth; to another, Come, and he cometh; and to all of them, Do thus, and they obey him.

“The ancient bishop _was chosen_ by the presbyters and the Church to preside over them. The modern chooses the presbyters, and sends them to minister where he will. And yet men who are, or ought to be, familiar with all these facts, and these men the professed lovers of truth, the avowed ministers of Jesus, have the effrontery to contend that bishops, in this modern sense, have _always_ existed in the Church, amply because they can trace the word down to the apostles themselves.

“But I ask your pardon: I am talking too long. We have spent too much time already upon this point; especially as we shall probably have occasion to refer to it again, when we come to investigate the claims of the Episcopal Church. You will remember that it now came up incidentally, and not entirely in the order of our discussion. I have, however, redeemed my pledge. I have shown, by the testimony of standard historians, by the concessions of the most zealous advocates of the bishop’s power, and by the Fathers themselves, that the Episcopate, in the modern understanding of it, was an _innovation_ upon the order established by Christ. It was, as have stated, probably the _first_ of those changes by which the Churches were finally involved in utter apostasy. They cast off the rule of _Christ_ as their sole Lord and King, and subjected themselves to the bishops.”

“Was it not strange,” asked Mr. Percy, “that this should have been done without resistance or remonstrance?”

“It was done, as Jerome says, ‘_paulatim_’—by little and little, so gradually as scarcely to excite alarm. But yet it was not done without remonstrance. How many complained, and yet submitted, we do not know. How many Churches refused to submit, history has not recorded. But we know that there were _many_, under various names, and in various places, who always protested against this usurpation. But when once the bishops had obtained the power, it was no light matter to venture to dispute their Divine right to govern; as may be seen in the case of Ærius, (not Arius, who denied our Lords eternal Sonship, or, as some say, his Divinity; but Ærius,) who lived about the same time with Jerome, or a little earlier. He held the same opinion that Jerome and Augustine, Ambrose and Chrysostom did: namely, that in the _first_ Churches bishops and presbyters were one; and that the _authority_ which had then been usurped by the bishops, and was, for the most part, tamely acquiesced in by the Churches, was not conferred by the Scriptures, but only existed by the custom of the Church. But, not like Jerome, and these others, whom the Catholics have since dubbed _saints_, he was determined to carry out his faith into his practice. The others acted as Chalmers, and McKnight, and many other eminent modern divines have done in regard to baptism. They admit that it was immersion which Christ commanded, and the first Churches practiced; and that the change to sprinkling was made without any express sanction of the Master. And yet they quietly coincide with the Church; and, while contending for immersion as the true baptism, practice the sprinkling which has, _by custom_, come into its place. So these ancient saints, while they contended and _proved_ that the first bishops were not invested with dominion over the Churches, yet either exercised that dominion themselves, or quietly submitted to those who did. Ærius, however, sought to reform the error. He openly and boldly proclaimed that bishops are, by the Scriptures, in no way superior to the presbyters: that these were only different names for the same office. He declaimed against feasts, and fasts, and prayers for the dead, or to the dead; all which he regarded as _unscriptural_. He sought to bring the Churches back to the simple gospel standard. But by doing so, he roused a host of enemies on every side. He was quickly silenced as a minister: denounced as a _heretic_. His followers were excluded from the Churches, banished from the cities and towns, and obliged to hold their meetings (as the Waldenses did afterwards, for teaching the same doctrines) in the forests or the caverns of the mountains.

“But let us go back. You will recollect, Mrs. Percy, that we were endeavoring to answer your question, how it was that what had once been Churches of Jesus Christ, became the persecutors of the true believers and obedient disciples of the Lord. I said that the first step towards this unhappy result was that by which the Churches lost their separate independence, and became the subjects of a hierarchy of _bishops_. They gave up their sole allegiance to Christ, and owned the rule of human masters. We have spent perhaps more time than we should in showing how that was done. But, simultaneous with that, and, like that, brought about by little and little, was another change, still more important. That was a change in the _government_ of the Church: this was a change in the character of its constituent _membership_. That was a change of _external polity_: this was a change of the very materials of which it was composed. That set over the Church rulers whom Christ had not appointed: this introduced into the Church members whom Christ had not authorized. The first change, even before itself was fully consummated, did much to prepare the way for the introduction of the second; and the second did much in after years to perpetuate the first. Christ’s Churches were at first, as we have seen, composed exclusively of those who had given evidence of conversion, and had professed a rational and personal belief in him as their Redeemer. They were a _spiritual_ people, who had been _renewed_ in the temper and disposition of their minds; in whom the carnal enmity of the natural heart had been supplanted with the love of God in Christ; in whom the darkness of the natural mind had been made light in the Lord; who had been subjects of an interior change so great that it was aptly designated a new birth, by which they were introduced into a new life, as was symbolized in their baptism; wherein their old life, their former self, was represented as dead and _buried_ with Christ, and their present self as raised up again from the dead; so that they should henceforth walk in newness of life, or simply live a new life. The first Churches, I say, the true Churches of Jesus Christ, were composed, or designed to be composed, of such people as these. But very early after COUNCILS of bishops had usurped the prerogative of Christ, and began to make laws for the government of the Churches, they changed the conditions of membership, and substituted _the repetition of a form of words_ for an intelligent profession of a living faith. Grown persons, youth, and children, were taught, like parrots, to repeat the form of words; and when they had been thus prepared, they were initiated into the Church, and entitled to all its privileges. The Church was therefore soon composed of unconverted men; and they were taught that by the _ceremony_ of their initiation, by the magic efficacy of their baptism, they had been made members of Christ and heirs of glory; and were ready enough to obey the behests of those _bishops_ at whose hands they now were taught eternal life could only be obtained. Salvation was in the _sacraments_: the sacraments were in the _Church_, and could only be available when received at the hand of the _bishop_, or some one authorized by him. And what the bishop’s blessing gave, the bishop’s curse could take away. The bishop had the keys of heaven and hell. Whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive. Not for time—that were a trifle—but his power reached beyond the grave, and was as lasting as eternity. Who would not fear the bishop? Then, on the other hand, the bishops loved power; and the bishops loved wealth. Strange as it may seem, they delighted in magnificent cathedrals, and splendid palaces, and princely ostentation. To gain wealth, they must have subjects; to multiply subjects was the shortest way to power and opulence. Now, each bishop claimed as his subject those who were baptized by him or under his direction. Each, therefore, had an interest in making the terms of entrance into the Church as easy as possible.

“At first they gave instruction to adults, and when they could repeat the creed and catechism, admitted them to baptism. But they could not overlook the rising generation. It would soon control the wealth and power of the nation. That wealth and power must be made subservient to the Church. The _youth_ therefore were all, so far as practicable, collected and catechized, and baptized. Then the children, as soon as they could learn the creed and say the needful formula, were brought into the Church. Then smaller children still, as soon as they could say the words as _prompted_ at the time. And, at length, little, puling babes, who could not answer for themselves at all, but were obliged to have _sponsors_ to say for them what older people had been required to say for themselves. When these water-made Christians, these unconverted minors, children and babes, grew up to manhood, _they were the Church_. They had no more love for Christ and for his cause, no more of his meekness, no more of his charity, no more of his justice, than if they had not been baptized; no more than the heathen. Yet they were the members; they were the deacons; they were the presbyters; they were the bishops; and is it any wonder that, like other unconverted men, they hated, and despised, and rejected, and persecuted the simple gospel and the pure religion of the meek and lowly Nazarene? Is it any wonder that a true believer, who had the courage to obey God rather than man; who protested against this monstrous metamorphosis of Christianity, and ventured yo intimate that _this was not the Church which Christ established_, was at once denounced as a heretic, excommunicated as a schismatic, banished as a disturber of the _peace of the Church_, or _burnt_, as a warning to the faithful not to distrust the teachings of their priests and bishops? This is the process by which the first persecuting Churches were made; and this is the process by which every persecuting Church has been made, down to the present time. They have all brought in their _members_ in childhood, or infancy; and they grow up _wicked_ men, haters of Jesus, and persecutors of his people. No Church that bears the Christian name, and which requires the same terms of membership that the Scriptures do, namely, personal penitence for sin, and personal faith in Christ, has ever persecuted; and it is remarkable that _every one_ of _all_ the Pedobaptist ecclesiastical establishments, all these so-called Churches of Christ, have, when they have had the power, been _persecutors_ of those who could not conscientiously submit to their dictation.”

“That, if true, is certainly a very remarkable fact,” said the Doctor, “and very suggestive. I do not feel disposed to question it just now; nor will I ask you to-day for the authorities upon which you base the account you have just now given of the introduction of infant baptism. The picture you give is natural enough, and I could readily believe it, if properly authenticated. But I have always taken it for granted that infant baptism was, if not sanctioned by the apostles, one of the very earliest innovations on their practice, and that it was introduced with so great unanimity that there is no record of the time or manner of its coming in, or of any opposition to it. But I will not ask you for your testimony now. We have already had a long sitting, and we have yet another test to apply to the Church of Rome.”

“That will not take us long. Our test is the ninth and the last. It says that, No apostate Church can be a Church of Christ. Not that a true Church may not, in process of time, by change of members, change of officers, and change of laws, cease to be a true Church, and thus become apostate; but that after she _has_ thus apostatized, she is no Church of Christ, even though she may still retain the same name and the same external forms that she had at first. Christ’s _institution_, called the Church, is to be permanent and perpetual. But as many an individual _example_ of that institution has died out and ceased to be, so many a one has gone out from Christ’s jurisdiction, and associated with his enemies. But when it _has_ done so it is not a Church of Christ: when it has done so. It has no authority in his kingdom; when it has done so, its members are no longer members of Christ’s Church; its ordinances are no longer Christian ordinances, its ministry is no longer the Christian ministry. _All its official acts are null and void._ It cannot therefore be the medium of baptism to members or ordination to ministers. This is self-evident. It is a thing of necessity, unless you admit the absurdity that an organization which is _not_ a Church of Christ, and to which Christ has given _no_ authority, is yet competent to perform, in a legal and valid manner, those acts which he has intrusted exclusively to his Church.

“I trust our friends here will _notice_ this point; I dwell upon it because it is of vast importance.”

“How so, Mr. Courtney? I do not discover any thing so _very_ important in it,” said Theodosia; “but I suppose it in my stupidity that prevents me from seeing it.”

“I will tell you. The Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and, I believe, all those denominations who are called _Protestants_, believe and teach that the Church of Rome, so far from being a true Church of Christ, is that _Antichrist_ which was foretold by the apostles. They have the best of reasons for this faith. There is no doubt that they are in this entirely correct. And yet, while they thus believe and teach, they cannot deny the fact that _they all received their baptism and their ordination_ from the Church of Rome. Now, if Rome were never a Church of Christ, they could not even pretend that it had any right to baptize or ordain, any more than the Mormon society at Nauvoo had. Baptism and ordination conferred by them, and received through them, would have been no more _Christian_ baptism than if it had been received from the followers of Mohammed in Mecca. They therefore say that Rome _was once_ a true Church, but that she has _apostatized_ and become what she is. As she was once a Church, she could receive and transmit true Christian baptism and valid ordination. Now, our position is, that from the day she became _apostate_ she _ceased to be a Church of Christ. She was no more a Church of his than if she never had been one._ She had no more authority to act as the administrator of the laws of his kingdom than if she had never possessed that authority. Her baptism, after that, was no more Christian baptism than the washing of the heathen in the pagan temples of their idol gods was Christian baptism. The ordination of a minister by her authority and for her service, was no more Christian ordination than the consecration of a priest of Jupiter was Christian ordination; for she was no more a Christian Church, and had no more authority to act in the capacity of a Christian Church than any other company of those who hated holiness and persecuted the true disciples of the Lord.

“This surely will not admit of doubt; it needs no argument. If any one will dispute this, it is hardly worth while to reason with him. Christ gave the authority to administer his ordinances and execute his laws to his Church as the executive of _his_ kingdom. Now, when any assembly _ceases_ to be HIS Church, it has no longer his commission. All its rights are forfeited. It cannot carry them out of the kingdom; it cannot exercise them as Christ’s executive, when itself no longer belongs to Christ. A provincial government that has revolted against its king, thrown off its allegiance, instituted new officers, made new laws, received other subjects, and directed all its powers, physical and mental, to the destruction of the faithful subjects of their former king, are surely not legal administrators of the ordinances of his kingdom. They may still _claim_ to act by his authority; they may still employ his _name_ to give apparent sanction to their work; they may deny that they are rebels; they may declare that the king has _no other faithful subjects but themselves_, and gives authority to none but them. Yet all this will not legalize their acts. Their acts will no more possess the actual sanction of the king than if they had been done in their own name, or in the name of some foreign potentate, whose authority they had never pretended to recognize. The _faithful subjects_ of the king can no more recognize their acts as legal than if they had never made any part of the kingdom. Now, suppose a subject of a foreign power should be _naturalized_, and so entitled to all the rights of citizenship in this revolted province, and should thence pass over to some province which had continued faithful to the king; would that _naturalization_ given by this revolted province entitle him to citizenship in the _real_ kingdom? He has come among the rebels; he has been received by the rebels; he has been naturalized by the rebels; and he is on this account entitled to citizenship among the rebels. But now, when he comes among the faithful, he must be naturalized by the faithful. They cannot recognize the authority of the rebels to admit citizens to _their_ kingdom. If he become a citizen there, he must be naturalized there, and by the legal and undisputed authority of their king.

“So, when a subject of Satan comes to an apostate, a revolted Church, and is received by them, baptized by them, and thus made one of them, and entitled to all the privileges of Church-membership among them, he does not by this act become a member of Christ’s kingdom. This baptism does not make him a member of any true Church of Christ. And if he should desire to leave the rebels and unite with a true and faithful Church, that Church could not recognize as legal, or receive as valid, the baptism of the apostates. _And if she should receive him as a member, without baptizing him_, she would by that act acknowledge that _his previous baptism had been legal and valid_; and, consequently, that the revolted and apostate Church was, at the time of conferring it, just as much a true Church of Christ, and just as _truly authorized_ _by Christ_ to receive members and administer his ordinance, es she is herself.

“So also in regard to ordination. Suppose, in the revolted province, some one who had been received and naturalized and made a citizen among the rebels, should be by them chosen to office, by them duly initiated and commissioned as an _officer_ to exercise among them the authority belonging to his station; and he should choose, afterward, to go over among the faithful subjects of the king, and claim that he was entitled to exercise the authority of his office _there_, in the real kingdom, what would the faithful subjects of the king be bound to do? Must they recognize his authority? must they submit to his rule? If they do so, they admit that the acts of the rebels are as legal and valid as their own acts, done by order of the king. They could do no such thing. If they received him as a _citizen_, they must first _naturalize_ him again; for his naturalization by the rebels is nothing to them; (it did not make him a member of the kingdom, but only of a community of rebels.) Then, if they desired his services as an _officer_ they would elect him as such, and commission him as such. And until he had been thus chosen and commissioned, he could surely be no more an officer among them, and they could no more recognize any official act of his, than as though the rebels had never dreamed of giving him a commission in their revolted government.

“So, when an apostate, a revolted _Church_, has first, by their unauthorized baptism, made one a member of their apostate communion, and then appointed him to office, and commissioned him as a minister to exercise his proper functions in their rebel assemblies, this does not make him a minister of any true Church of Christ. This does not empower him to exercise the office of a minister, or make any of his ministerial acts legal and valid, within Christ’s visible kingdom. Christ has intrusted the selecting and commissioning of his ministers to _his_ Churches, and not to Churches which hate his people and his cause, and employ all their powers to injure and destroy them. If this man is to perform any official act within the true kingdom of Christ, he must first be _ordained_ by _legal_ authority within the kingdom; and every official act which he shall take upon him to perform, without such legal ordination, is illegal and invalid; it is null and void, as though it never had been done.

“This is surely all very plain; and I cannot conceive how any man of common sense, who will take five minutes to think about it, can ever venture to doubt or dispute it.”

“Certainly, I see all that,” said Theodosia; “but I do not yet quite apprehend the vast importance which you seem to attach to it. I do not yet perceive the tremendous consequences which are to follow from these self-evident truths.”

“These consequences,” replied Mr. Courtney, “_are SO tremendous_, and they follow _so necessarily_ and _indisputably_ from the premises which we have laid down, that, when they _are_ seen and felt, the mind almost instinctively rejects the premises; though, when seen without the consequences, it cannot help admitting their truth, and, even after the consequences are fully realized, can find no _logical_ means of setting them aside.

“As one who stands and gazes at the desolation in the path of the avalanche, which rushed but yesterday over some beauteous, and luxuriant, and densely-populated valley, can hardly realize what he beholds; but exclaims, even while he sees it all, ‘_This cannot be_. Surely this is not the place which yesterday was thronging with busy life and studded with peaceful dwellings, in which were beating a thousand human hearts, with all their joys and sorrows, hopes and fears; and now thus desolate; now thus dead. And yet it _must_ be so. This _is_ the place; and there is now the ponderous mass which made this fearful ruin!’ So he who can be brought to look this subject fairly and fully in the face; who will bring his mind and hold it to the point until he sees and realizes the premises we have laid down, and the conclusion that _must_, of logical necessity, follow, is apt to feel as though the mind were stunned and stupefied with the result. And though he cannot show any flaw in the argument, or offer any reason why he should think it false, he yet exclaims, ‘_It surely cannot be true._’

“The consequence which I have spoken of is this: An apostate Church, _after it has become apostate_, is not a Church of Christ. Her baptism is not valid Christian baptism. Her ministers are not legal Christian ministers. Her acts, _as a Church_, are, one and all, utterly null and void. Now, it is admitted by Episcopalians and Presbyterians, Lutherans and Methodists, that _the Church of Rome IS THUS APOSTATE_, and that she WAS thus apostate _before the Reformation_. If so, she had before that time become incapable of conferring baptism or ordination. Her baptism was not Christian baptism, and her ministers had no authority as the ministers of Christ. And yet the _only_ baptism and the _only_ ordination which any of these denominations have, they received _from the Church of Rome_. It follows, therefore, if an apostate Church cannot confer valid Christian baptism; nay, if the baptism of _Antichrist_ is not valid Christian baptism, the founders and first members of these Churches were not baptized; and if the _ordination of Antichrist_ could not create a Christian minister, their ministers had never been ordained. And now, if baptism is a necessary prerequisite to Church membership, so that an assembly, even of good people, cannot be a true, visible Church of Christ, unless its members have been baptized,—not into Mohammedanism, by the authority of the false prophet; not into Mormonism, by the authority of Joe Smith; not into Roman Catholicism, by the authority of the Pope; but into a _genuine Christianity_, by the authority of Jesus,—then they could not, until they _had been baptized_, have become _true_ Churches of Christ. And unless _genuine_ and valid baptism can be conferred by those who have themselves not been baptized, and unless true and valid ordination can be conferred by those who have themselves neither been baptized nor ordained, then they have _never_ received baptism, and have _never_ had a legal ministry; and, consequently, _never have been_, ARE NOT NOW, and NEVER CAN BE, true Churches and true ministers of Christ, until they shall have been baptized into a real Church of baptized believers.

“They _admit_ that baptism is an essential prerequisite to Church-membership.

“They _admit_ that no one can give true Christian baptism who has not been himself baptized.

“They _admit_ that baptism conferred by Mohammedans or Mormons, by a Temperance Society, or a lodge of Odd-Fellows or Freemasons, would not be Christian baptism; but that, to be such, it must be given by _a true Church of Christ_.

“They _admit_ that they received their baptism from _Rome_.

“And they _admit_—nay, they contend and _prove_, that Rome, so far from being a true Church of Christ, was _Antichrist_ himself—the man of sin—the son of perdition—the apocalyptic beast—the dragon that made war upon the saints, and that drove the true Church into the wilderness, and that _wore out the saints_ with cruel and incessant persecutions.

“They admit all this, and they therefore _must admit_ that they have never had true baptism, and are not true Churches of Jesus Christ.

“They may stand and stare at the ghastly array of their admissions, and at the overwhelming ruin in which these admissions bury up all their claims to be regarded as true Churches. But they cannot deny that they have made these admissions. They cannot help making them again. They _must_ admit these things, or deny what is as open and plain as the day to every thinking mind. They _dare not_ dispute the premises, and they _cannot_ resist the consequence. They may lift up their hands and stupidly exclaim, ‘This cannot be so;’ but IT IS SO, nevertheless. They may say it is unchristian and uncharitable thus to _unchurch_ almost the whole of Christendom. We do not do it; it is the _logic of the case_ that does the work. Neither we nor _they_ themselves can deny the conclusion, if these admissions are once made. They may go back, if they choose, and _retract_ these admissions. They may take them one by one, and see if they _can_, see if they _dare_, as conscientious adherents to the simple truth, retract a single one of then.

“Let them try it. Let them begin with the last. Will they deny that Rome is Antichrist? We will prove it to them by arguments from the principal defenders of each of the denominations. We will prove it from Luther, from Calvin, from Baxter, from Doddridge, from Scott, from Benson, from Adam Clarke, from Wesley, from Chalmers. Or, if they do not like their own authorities, we will prove it by a comparison of the _historical facts_ with the Scripture predictions. Nay, further, if they deny that Rome is Antichrist; if they contend that Rome is, as she claims to be, the true Church of Christ, then it will _follow, just as certainly_ as before, that _THEY are NOT_ true Churches, though on different grounds. If Rome be the _true_ Church, then they who went out from Rome were _heretics_ and _schismatics_, and they legally are _exscinded_ and _excluded_ from the Church. For Rome, by the authority that was in her as Christ’s executive, has cut them off and consigned them to perdition. So, whichever horn of the dilemma they may take, they cannot go behind the last of these admissions. If Rome _was_ the true Church; if Rome _was_ authorized to exercise the authority of the kingdom of Christ; if Rome was that body to which Christ had committed the ordinances and laws of his kingdom for preservation and execution, then the act of Rome, by which they were cut off, was a _legal_ act; and they were _cast out_ of the Church, and, of course, had no more authority to baptize, and preach, and found Churches, than a deposed and excluded minister would have now.

“If you say that they _withdrew_, and were not cut off, it does not help the case at all; for, on the supposition that Rome _was_ the true Church, they, in that case, went out from the true Church of Christ, and of course no longer made a part of it, and had no authority in it. But the first reformers _did not_ withdraw. They remained in the Church as long as they could. They had no thought of forming a _new_ Church, but only of reforming the old. They, as members of the Church of Rome, _protested_ against her faith and practices. And for this they were excluded, anathematized, and persecuted, by that apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical hierarchy. But Protestants will not, they cannot, they dare not, in the face of their own denunciations of Rome as an apostate Church, and as Antichrist, recall what they have said, and fraternize with her as a true Church of Christ. _And if they DO, it will not affect our argument; for WE HAVE PROVED HER FALSE_, though they may count her true. We have tried her by the Word of God, and found that she has not one single mark of a _true_ Church of Christ. And yet, if she had every _mark but one_, she would not be a true Church of Christ. If, therefore, she ever was a true Church, she has become _apostate_. If she is apostate now, she _has been_ so ever since she possessed the same peculiarities upon which we have rejected her claims; and this was, to say the least, long before the Reformation. The _only_ ground on which a consistent Protestant can stand and claim that those who received their baptism and their ordination in Rome, and yet, on coming out of her, were true Church-members, with valid baptism and legal ordination, is this: they may contend that when these members were received and baptized, and when these ministers were ordained, the Church of Rome was a _true Church of Christ_; but, in the interval which elapsed between their baptism and ordination and their final withdrawal or expulsion, she had become the apostate seat of sin and abode of every unclean and hateful bird. But this they did not pretend at the time. No one will venture to pretend it now. Bad as Rome was at the time of Luther, she was not as bad as she had been. Her pope and cardinals, bishops and priests, vile as they were, were decent men, in comparison with the monsters of vice, and cruelty, and profligacy, which filled her sacred (!) offices in the tenth and eleventh centuries. She was just then only selling for money the privilege to sin; but she had long been accustomed to sell for money the right to grant such privileges. She was then only burning now and then a heretic; but she had long before been used to murder them by thousands.

“The apostasy was not only begun, but matured, hundreds of years before Luther was born. It was not then a thing of yesterday. Luther was born under an apostate Church; he was baptized into an apostate Church, and made a priest of an apostate Church; and his companions were all of them baptized into an apostate Church, if they were baptized at all. The _only_ baptism and the _only_ ordination that he or any of them received, was that of a Church that had _not one single mark or feature_ of the Church of Christ; and, consequently, their baptism and ordination was no better than if they had received it in a Mohammedan mosque, or a Mormon temple, or a Freemason’s lodge. And since they could not give what they had not received, the so-called Churches which they set up have never had, and have not now, and never can have, the ordinances of a Church of Christ, until they receive them from a true and legal Church.

“But we need not forestall the results of our coming examination of their several claims. We have now done with that of the Church of Rome. We have first ‘_searched the Scriptures_,’ and found what were there laid down as the peculiar characteristics of a true Church of Christ. We have tried to find if Rome possessed these characteristics, and discovered that she has not _one_.”

“I have,” said Mr. Percy, “busied myself, as we have gone along, in making a sort of picture, or diagram, of this Church. As we had nine marks, I divided this blank page into nine equal spaces, and writing the marks in the margin, determined, if she was found to possess any one of them, to leave a white space for it; if not, to make it black. And here you see it all black, in every space, from the top to the bottom.”

“It is a good conception,” said the Doctor; “and I hope you will give us a similar diagram of every Church whose claims may come before us. But we are tired now; let us adjourn; and when we meet to-morrow, take up the Church of England.”

DIAGRAM OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Signs or Marks of a True | | Marks of the Roman Catholic Church. | | Church. --------------------------+--------------+---------------------------- 1st. It consists only of | ████████████ | It includes little children professed believers in | | who cannot believe. See p. Christ. | | 157.

2d. Its members have been | ████████████ | Its members were sprinkled baptized upon a | | in infancy. See pp. profession of their | | 188⁠–⁠194. faith. | |

3d. It is a local | ████████████ | It is not a local, organization, and | | independent organization, independent of all | | but a vast hierarchy. See others. | | pp. 195⁠–⁠197.

4th. It has Christ alone | ████████████ | It has the Pope for its for its King and | | head and lawgiver, and Lawgiver, and recognizes | | receives Christ’s law un no other authority above | | subordinate to his. See p. its own. | | 197.

5th. Its members have | ████████████ | They were made members in become such by their own | | childhood, without their voluntary act. | | knowledge or consent. See | | p. 198.

6th. It holds as articles | ████████████ | It denies the fundamental of faith the fundamental | | doctrine of salvation by doctrines of the gospel. | | faith, and makes it depend | | on works and sacraments. | | See p. 199.

7th. It began with | ████████████ | Christ did not establish Christ, and has continued | | any hierarchy. The Roman to the present time. | | Catholic Church began long | | after the apostles. See p. | | 199.

8th. It never persecutes | ████████████ | It has always and for conscience’ sake. | | everywhere been a | | persecutor, when it had the | | power. See pp. 201⁠–⁠206.

9th. No apostate Church | ████████████ | If it was ever a true can be a Church of | | Church, it apostatized when Christ. | | it became a hierarchy. or a | | persecutor. See pp. | | 245⁠–⁠256.

SEVENTH DAY’S TRAVEL.

“You will recollect,” said the Doctor, at the commence men of the conversation this morning, “that there was one point suggested by your remarks yesterday, concerning which I desired some further information; not so much because I had any doubt of the correctness of your statements, as because I desire to know upon what sort of evidence you made assertions so very different from those I have been accustomed to hear.”

“Certainly,” replied Mr. Courtney; “I remember it perfectly. You have all your life been taught, as all Pedobaptists are, by preachers, and books, and pamphlets, and papers, that the baptism of babes dates from the time of Christ. And I asserted that it was introduced at a much later period. I do not love to make assertions without giving the proof, and am very glad that you are disposed to hear the testimony. I will make it as concise as possible, and it will be as convincing as you can possibly desire. I will set your mind at rest on this point at once and for ever.

“And I say, in the _first_ place, if the baptism of babes was _not_ practiced by Christ and the apostles, it _must_ have been introduced afterwards. This is self-evident. But now, we have carefully examined the record of the sayings and doings of Christ and the apostles, from Matthew to Revelation; and though we have found the baptism of many thousands of men and women expressly mentioned, we have not discovered any account of, or any allusion to, the baptism of one solitary babe. We must therefore, if the record be not incomplete on this most important point of Christian faith and practice, admit that _no infant was baptized_. At any rate, we must so decide, unless those who say that infant baptism was then practiced will show at least one plain, undoubted fact on which to base their assertion. But such a fact the most intelligent and candid Pedobaptists do not so much as pretend to have. They say, with their learned and zealous advocate, Professor Stuart, ‘Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament relative to it I do not find.’

“No one ever investigated this subject with more laborious scrutiny then Dr. Wall, the author of the ‘History of Infant Baptism;’ yet he is forced to acknowledge that, ‘Among all the persons that are recorded as having been baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any infant.’

“So Luther says, expressly, ‘It cannot be proved by the Sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles.’

“So the learned Erasmus, in his note on Romans v. 14: ‘Paul does not seem to treat about infants. It was not yet the custom for infants to be baptized.’

“So the Magdeburg Centuriators: ‘Concerning the baptism of infants, there are no examples of which we read in the first century.’

“Bishop Burnet expressly declares, ‘There is no express precept or rule given in the New Testament for the baptism of infants.’

“I might extend this catalogue indefinitely; but I need not do so. I will only add the testimony of the learned Limbroch, given in his System of Divinity: ‘There is no express command for it in Scripture. Nay, all those passages wherein baptism is commanded, do immediately relate to adult persons, since they are ordered to be instructed, and faith is prerequisite as a necessary qualification, which [things] are peculiar to the adult. There is no instance can be produced from whence it may indisputably be inferred that any child was baptized by the apostles. The necessity of Pedobaptism was never asserted by any council before that of Carthage, held in the year 418. We own that there is no precept nor undoubted instance in Scripture of infant baptism.’

“Now, since we have searched for it in the Record, and could not find it; and since these and others of the most learned, most industrious, and most zealous advocates of infant baptism admit that they have searched for it and cannot find it, it seems to me that we are fully justified in concluding _that it is not there_.”

“But, Mr. Courtney, you say these men were themselves baptizers of infants. They were pious, conscientious men How _could_ they practice and commend that which had no Scripture authority?”

“That is a hard question, sir. If they were still alive, I would like to ask it of themselves. I suppose most of them, did they venture to speak out truly the real ground of their faith and practice, would give it somewhat in the language of Mr. Walker, in his modest plea for infant baptism: ‘Where authority from the Scriptures fail, there _the custom of the Church_ is to be held as law. It doth not follow that our Saviour gave no precept for the baptizing of infants because no such precept is particularly expressed in the Scriptures; for our Saviour spake many things to his disciples concerning the kingdom of God, both before his passion and after his resurrection, which are not written in the Scriptures. And who can say but that among those many unwritten sayings of his, there might be an express precept for infant baptism?’”

“Certainly,” exclaimed Theodosia. “Who can say? And who can say that there was not among those unwritten sayings of his a complete description of purgatory? Who can say that there were not express directions concerning the consecration of monks and nuns? Who can say that all the mummery of Popery was not detailed in those unwritten conversations?”

“It seems very evident to me,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “that if He did give them such an express precept, they were very disobedient to his requirement; for of all the thousands whom they actually baptized, we do not read that they ever baptized a single infant; and never in a single instance so much as intimated to those whom they received and organized into Churches, that it was their duty and their privilege to bring their infants in with them. If he gave them such a precept, I can only say, they must have forgotten all about it, and the Holy Spirit failed to bring it to their remembrance, as Jesus promised he should do concerning the things which he had told them.”

“We have nothing at all to do,” said Mr. Courtney, “with traditions on this or any other point of faith or practice. The custom of the Churches, except so for as that custom is recorded in the Book, is nothing to us; and yet I will show that the custom of the Churches was _not_ to baptize infants for several generations after the apostles. I say, first, infant baptism was not commanded by Christ, or practiced by the apostles. It did not exist up to the time when the canon of Scripture was completed. This I take for granted from the simple fact, that neither we, nor its most diligent and capable and zealous advocates have been able to discover any trace of it in the Book.

“I will now prove to you that it did not exist in the century next after the apostles. What sort of testimony do you require! Will you have the statements of ecclesiastical historians? Wallafridus Strabo, a Catholic ecclesiastical historian of the ninth century, says, ‘It should be observed, that in the primitive times, the grace of baptism was usually given to those only who were arrived at such maturity of body and mind that they could understand what were the benefits of baptism; what was to be confessed and believed; and, finally, what was to be observed by those who are regenerated in Christ.’

“In fact, there is a canon of a Roman Catholic council, held at Paris in the year eight hundred and twenty-nine, which says the same thing: ‘In the beginning of the Holy Church of God, no one was admitted to baptism unless he had before been instructed in the sacrament of faith and of baptism, which is proved by the words of St. Paul, Rom. vi. 3, 4.’

“Salmasius, an eminent French Roman Catholic, says, ‘In the first two centuries no one was baptized except, being instructed in the faith, and acquainted with the doctrine of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer, because of those words, “He that believeth and is baptized.” Thence the order of catechumens in the Church. Then also it was the constant custom to give the Lord’s Supper to those catechumens immediately after their baptism.’

“Ludovicus Vives declares, ‘No one in former times was admitted to the sacred baptistery except he was of age, understood what the mystical water meant, desired to be washed in it, and expressed that desire more than once, of which practice we have yet a faint resemblance in our baptism of infants; for an infant of only a day or two old is yet asked [in the Lutheran Church] whether he will be baptized; and this question is asked three times: in whose name the sponsors answer, He does desire it.’

“Curcellæus says, ‘The baptism of infants in the first two centuries after Christ was altogether unknown; but in the third and fourth was allowed by some few. In the fifth and the following ages it was generally received. The custom of baptizing infants did not begin before the third age after Christ was born. In the former ages no trace of it appears. It was introduced without the command of Christ: and therefore,’ he says in another place, ‘this rite is observed by us as an _ancient_ custom, but not as an apostolical tradition.’

“To the same effect speak many of the most learned Europeans who have, with every possible facility for such investigations, made the customs of the ancient Church their study.

“Thus the Magdeburg Centuriators concerning the first century say, ‘In this age they baptized only the adult or aged, whether Jews or Gentiles; and as to the manner of baptizing, it was by dipping or plunging in the water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.’ Of the second century they say, ‘It doth not appear from any approved authors that there was any mutation or change in respect to baptism from the first century.’ Of the third they say, ‘As to the rite of baptism in the Churches of Asia, we have no testimony of any alteration; but concerning the African Churches, there were great corruptions, in opinion at least, if not in practice;’ and instance the introduction of the baptism of infants, which was opposed by Tertullian.

“Dr. Mosheim says of the first century, ‘No _persons_ were admitted to baptism but such as had been previously instructed into the principal points of Christianity, and had also given satisfactory proofs of pious dispositions and upright intentions.’ And of the second century, ‘The persons to be baptized, after they had repeated the creed confessed, and renounced their sins, particularly the Devil and his pompous allurements, were immersed under water, and received into Christ’s kingdom by a solemn invocation.’

“These authorities are none of them Baptists. They every one belong to Churches which consist of those baptized in infancy. They all have every motive to find infant baptism in the first Churches if they can. They none of them have any conceivable interest in advancing Baptist sentiments; and one would think the united testimony of such men, upon a question of ecclesiastical history, would be decisive. I would say, if I were talking on any other subject, that he who would, without a careful personal examination of the evidences, venture to assert, in opposition to all this, that infant baptism existed in the first two centuries, was either a liar or a fool. But I know the force of religious prejudice, and will not use such language. I will, on the contrary, suppose that even you and these good friends around me are not yet convinced I have given you the simple declarations of very learned and eminent men (themselves Pedobaptists) who before making those declarations had gone back into the musty records of antiquity, and made a careful and laborious search for the real facts. After such examination they expressly depose that the first and second centuries knew nothing of infant baptism. I can for my own part see no reason why any man should ask for further witnesses; but we have others, and I will bring them in, and they shall testify.

“There are witnesses which show that even to a much later day than this, infant baptism was the exception, and not, as now in Pedobaptist Churches, the general rule—I mean the baptistries. The Christians continued to baptize in streams, and pools, and baths until the middle of the third century. Justin Martyr says, the candidates ‘Were brought to a place where there was water.’ And Tertullian says, ‘It made no difference whether it were the sea, or a pool, or a lake, a river or a bath.’ But about the middle of the third century, shortly after infant baptism began to be rather proposed than practiced, the Churches began to build special places for baptism, especially in the towns and cities. These baptisteries were outside the churches, and consisted of a large pool enclosed in a building, and covered by a cupola, or dome. Now, the _most ancient_ of these baptisteries were arranged at great cost for the immersion of adults. The pools were large enough and deep enough to swim in, and by the ancients were sometimes called swimming places. It was not until after the fifth century that the _font_ was found in the place of the _pool_, and not until the fourteenth that the basin took the place of the font. Now these, though silent, are most convincing witnesses. The first baptisteries were contrived and fitted for the immersion of adults. The fonts, reduced in size, first to the standard of youths, and then to that of babes, show the gradual incoming of the immersion of infants; and the substitution of the basin shows the introduction of sprinkling.

“But, not to dwell on this, I wish to call your attention to another and a most conclusive fact. It is this: _All the ancient formularies of the baptismal service are arranged for adults_; or, at least, for those who could understand and answer the questions for themselves, In the earliest liturgies and rituals there is no provision made for infants. They are no more recognized as the proper subjects of baptism than are the worshippers of Jupiter.”

“I do not see how you can prove that,” said the Doctor, “unless you can give us the rituals to examine for ourselves, or show us the testimony of some competent and credible witness who has examined them.”

“It is in my power to do both at the same time. I have in my trunk a work, recently published in London, which brings to light much that was not known before, and clears away the rubbish which defaced and concealed much that was partly understood concerning the faith and practice of the first Churches. No one, who will follow the learned author through all the various paths by which he has come to his final conclusions, will be disposed to doubt that he has at length discovered and brought to view the real picture of the ancient Church. I will get it, and show you what was the practice of that Church concerning baptism. The author, who is the learned Chevalier Bunsen, is not a Baptist. He has no object in advancing Baptist sentiments. He is a Pedobaptist scholar, who, by vast labor and research, has endeavored to discover beneath the rubbish which false learning had heaped upon it, the beautiful form of the apostolical Church. Not, indeed, as it existed in the apostles’ days; not as it was before it had been at all corrupted by false doctrine or unauthorized practices; but as it was from the second to the fifth century. This book is called ‘Hippolytus And His Age.’ It is based upon the discovery of a long-lost manuscript of that ancient bishop, who lived and wrote in the third century. But besides this manuscript, Bunsen, the translator of it, has brought together, from many and various sources, the most reliable and authentic accounts of the age when Hippolytus lived.”

Mr. Courtney went to his state-room for the book, and presently returned with the third volume, containing what purports to be the “Church and House Book of the Ancient Christians.”

“We will not have time,” said he, “to read this book to-day. I will merely call your attention to the fact recorded on the fifth page, that those who would be baptized must first be brought to the minister to _be instructed_. On the eighth page, we learn that the course of instruction ordinarily continued _three years_, though this depended on their course of life. After this they were examined, the correctness of their lives duly certified by those who had brought them for instruction; and after fasting, bathing, exorcism, etc., they were divested of their clothing and immersed in water. (Pp. 18⁠–⁠22.) Then, after baptism, they go up out of the water, are anointed with oil, signed with the sign of the cross, clothed in white garments, and so return to the Church, where the Lord’s Supper is at once administered to them.

“We see, therefore, that all these fooleries of exorcism, unction, and chrism, together with the sign of the cross, which have no scriptural authority, had come into use _long before_ infant baptism; and if the usage of the ancient Church can establish any thing not commanded in Scripture, these things stand on better ground than it does. But, although they had so far departed from the simplicity of the gospel as to introduce this senseless mummery, they had not yet learned to make one a Christian without his own consent. And Mr. Bunsen, on page 179, makes a very plain summing up of the whole matter. I will read it to you: ‘The Church adhered rigidly to the principle as constituting the true import of the baptism ordained by Christ, that no one can be a member of the communion of saints but by his own free act and deed, his own solemn vow, made in the presence of the Church. It was with this understanding that the candidate for baptism was immersed in water and admitted as a brother upon his confession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It understood baptism, therefore, in the exact sense the First Epistle of St. Peter, iii. 21, not as being a mere bodily purification, but as a vow made to God, with a good conscience, through faith in Jesus Christ. This vow was preceded by a confession of faith, made in the face of the Church, in which the catechumen expressed that faith in Christ, and in the sufficiency of the salvation offered by him. It was a vow to live for the time to come to God, and for his neighbor—not to the world and for self; a vow of faith in his becoming a child of God, through the communion with his only-begotten Son in the Holy Ghost; a vow of the most solemn kind, for life and for death. The keeping of this pledge was the condition of continuance in the Church. Its infringement entailed repentance or excommunication. All Church discipline was based upon this voluntary pledge, and the responsibility thereby self-imposed. How could such a vow be received without examination? How could such examination be passed without instruction and observation?

“‘As a general rule, the ancient Church fixed three years as the period for this preparation; supposing the candidate, whether a heathen or a Jew, to be competent to receive it. With Christian children the condition was the same, except that the term of probation was curtailed according to circumstances. _Pedobaptism, in the more modern sense, meaning thereby baptism of new-born infants, with the vicarious promises of parents or other sponsors, WAS UTTERLY UNKNOWN TO THE EARLY CHURCH,_ not only down to the end of the second, but indeed to the middle of the third century. We shall show, in a subsequent page, how this practice originated in the baptism of children of a more advanced age.’”

Mr. Courtney then turned to page 186, and read,

“‘THE EXAMINATION.—In the third and last year of the preparation, the catechumens were called _competentes_, or candidates, as they had been called hearers in the second. Before they were set apart from the rest, in immediate preparation for their baptism, an _examination_ was made as to their life and conduct during the period of probation.… It is unnecessary to say that this examination was a _public_ one. The _congregation_ [the ekklesia] was, and continued to be, the supreme judge.… If the candidates passed this ordeal, they were first bathed and pronounced personally clean. They fasted on Friday, and met together solemnly on Saturday. Thereupon they were commanded to pray. They knelt down and received the bishop’s blessing, who exorcised every unclean spirit.… The bishop breathed upon each of them, as the Lord did upon his disciples, and then _sealed_ them (as the text-book expresses) on the forehead, ears, and lips—doubtless with the sign of the cross. At the dawn of Sunday, the baptismal font was filled, accompanied by a blessing, which corresponds exactly with the prayers [which they] used in consecrating the elements used for the Lord’s Supper. The deacons assisted the men, and the deaconesses the women, to take off their ornaments and put on the baptismal dress. They were then presented to one of the presbyters, who called solemnly on each of them to renounce Satan and all his services and all his works.… After this solemn renunciation he was anointed by the presbyter with the oil of exorcism.… The deacon and deaconess accompanied the neophytes into the water, and made each of them, in turn, repeat after them a confession of faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or respond to it with the words, I believe.… The confession was three times repeated, being uttered before each of the three immersions.… After that followed the true baptismal unction with the precious oil, the so-called chrisma.… The ceremony concluded with the Christian kiss.… After this, the baptized persons were clothed in white and conducted into the church.’ When, after repeating the Lord’s prayer in the name of the whole congregation, to show that each one was now a priest, ‘They partook of the Lord’s Supper, in which milk and honey were set before them, as well as bread and wine, doubtless as symbols of their being, as it were, newly born.’

“Now, what I say,” continued Mr. Courtney, “is this: however far all this may be from the practice of Christ and the apostles, it is utterly inconsistent with the idea that those who were the subjects of baptism could be little infants or any way incapable of witnessing a good profession. And if we read in this age or the next of the baptism of _children_, we may be sure that they are not _little babes_, but such as could be instructed, could believe and make profession of their faith.”

“But Bunsen promised to tell us, if I heard you rightly,” said Theodosia, “how it was that children at a later day came to be received. Can you find us that place?”

“It follows directly what we have been looking at. Here, on the 191st page, is the beginning of what he says on this point: ‘Baptism is indeed called a new birth—_regeneration_. But in what sense? Was it a sort of magical conversion of the curse into a blessing, effected now in the case of the infants by the act of sprinkling? Was it a forgiving of sins not intended to be brought back to the recollection of the parents or the sponsors who were present, but to be applied to the infant itself?

“‘The ancient Church knew no more than do the Gospels and the apostles of such superstition, which contains less spirituality than many of the _lustrations_ of the old world, and not much more than the _taurobolia_ and _criobolia_, mysteries of the last stages of heathenism, purporting to purify the neophyte by the blood of victims. On the contrary, she bears authentic testimony in all her ordinances against this corruption and misunderstanding, as in other cases the origin was innocent; and I think that we are at this moment better able than either the defenders or the opponents of infant baptism have hitherto been, to tell how it originated. A passage in our Alexandrian Church-book gives the true explanation of the assertion of Origen, himself an Alexandrian, that the baptism of children was an apostolic tradition. And it removes the origin of infant baptism from Tertullian and Hippolytus to the end of our present period; _Cyprian_ being the _first_ Father who, _impelled by a fanatical enthusiasm, and assisted by a bad interpretation of the Old Testament, established it as a principle_.… The difference between the ante-Nicene and the later Church was essentially this: the later Church, with the exception of converts, only baptized new-born infants, and she did so on principle. The _ancient_ Church, as a general rule, baptized adults, and only after they had gone through the course of instruction; and as the exception, only Christian children who had not yet arrived at years of maturity, _but never infants_.… Cyprian, and some other African bishops, his contemporaries, at the close of the third century were the first who viewed baptism in the light of a washing away of the universal sinfulness of human nature, and connected this idea with that ordinance of the Old Testament, circumcision.’ And he goes on to show, that it was on this ground that it was applied to babes, to wash away their hereditary or original sin. Hence the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

“Now, not only Bunsen, but all these writers whom I have quoted as authorities, are, if not opponents of the Baptists, all members of Pedobaptist Churches, and have every inducement to make the best showing that they can for the practice of their own communion. They are therefore most unexceptionable witnesses so far as they may be suspected of any secret bias to one side or the other of this controversy. They are certainly _competent_ to testify, having made the customs of the ancient Church their special study; and they testify most unmistakably that what I said was true; namely, that baptism which Christ commanded to be given only to the believing penitent, that is, to him who gave evidence of a renewal of his nature by the obedience of faith, was first given to the youth upon the repetition of a form of words which they had _learned_ as catechumens; and at length to those who could not say the words, but whose parents or others answered for them; and now, as we have often seen, it is given to little crying babes who do not know their right hand from their left. We have seen _when_ infant baptism was introduced, _why_ it was introduced, and _how_ it was introduced;[7] and I trust you are ready now to go on with our investigation of the claims of the English or Episcopal Church.”

“I am quite ready,” said the Doctor. “I shall not be troubled any more with doubts about the time of the introduction of infant baptism. I used to think that Dr. Barlow, an eminent Episcopalian, and Professor in the University at Oxford, England, spoke very strangely for one who belonged to a Pedobaptist Church; but I see now, that as a diligent student of antiquity, and a candid man, he could not have spoken otherwise.”

“What did he say, sir?” asked Theodosia.

“It was in a letter of his, published in England, in which he says, ‘I do believe and know that there is neither precept nor example in Scripture for infant baptism, nor any just evidence for it for above two hundred years after Christ; that Tertullian condemns it as an unwarrantable custom, and Nazianzen, a good while after him, dislikes it too. Sure I am, that in the primitive times they were first CATECHUMENI, then _Illuminati_, or BAPTIZATI; and that not only Pagans, and the children of Pagans converted, but children of Christian parents. The truth is, I do believe Pedobaptism, how or by whom I know not, came into the world in the second century, and in the third and fourth began to be practiced, though not generally defended as lawful, from the text John