Chapter XXIII: Introduction (6)

“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_.