GPS-07-The Identity of the Church

CHAPTER VII. THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH

We have found that the Church of God was organized in the city of Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost; and it is worthy of note that all the forms of speech used to indicate it are in the singular number; thus: “kingdom of heaven,” “kingdom of God;” “kingdom of his dear Son,” “church of God,” “household of faith,” “house of God,” “the pillar and ground of the truth,” “the body,” “temple of God,” etc., etc. Where the word churches occurs in the plural number, it has reference to the congregations worship­ing at particular places, and not to the kingdom, body, or church, which has been the object of our search. Paul tell his Ephesian brethren that “there is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” Ephesians 4:4-6. The con­nection in which we here have the phrase “one body” as clearly shows that there is but one body as does the phrase “one God” show that there is but one God. But, in Romans 12:4-5, we are told that, “as we have many members in one body, and all mem­bers have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ.” And again: “But now are they many members, yet but one body.”1 Corinthians 12:20. Thus we see that language can not more clearly indicate any thing than that Christ has but one organized body on the earth. What constitutes this one body? What is this one body? With reference to Christ, Paul says “he is the head of the body, the church.” Colossians 1:18. And again, verse 24, he says: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church.” Here we are ex­pressly told that the body is the church. Once more: “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” Ephesians 1:22-23. Here the order is reversed—the church is His body. Then the church and body are the same is His body. Then the church and body are the same, and are used interchangeably; but the unity of thought is quite apparent. “The body,” “the church”—not a church, some church, or anychurch, but THE CHURCH. There being but one body, and that being the church, it follows that there is but one church. Then if, in kindness, we may be plain and candid, without being of­fensive, we would like to inquire how it comes to pass that there is a Catholic Church, an Episcopalian Church, several kinds of Presbyterian Churches, several kinds of Methodist Churches, several kinds of Baptist Churches, etc., etc., each claiming Di­vine authority for its existence, and yet all acknowledging the Bible to be true, and an infallible rule of faith and practice. Is there not something wrong here? We hear Paul addressing “the church of God at Corinth,” but he never speaks to or in­structs the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, the Bap­tist Church; nor does he ever address any class of persons as a church at all, only those who compose the one body, or king­dom, of which Christ is the Head and King. But we are told that these sectarian organizations are branch­es of the one church, or body, of which Paul speaks. This makes the matter no better, but rather worse. Paul nowhere addresses the Presbyterian branch of the church, the Methodist branch of the church, or the Baptist branch of the church. In order to sen­sibly speak of branches of the church, one of three figures must be before the mind, viz.: a tree with trunk and branches, a vine with its stem and branches, or a stream with its tributaries. A tree and its branches and a vine and its branches are so nearly alike in their illustrative character, chat we may consider them together, while we see if either or both of them will symbolize the church. When did these branch organizations shoot forth? We do not know that we can correctly date the origin of all of them; nor is it necessary that we should go back to the begin­ning of the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches; for chose who advocate the branch church doctrine do not admit these to be sister branches with them at all. According to history, the Episcopal Church began about the year 1521. Presbyterianism began about the year 1537. Scotch Presbyterianism about the year 1558. English Presbyterianism about the year 1572. Baptistism began about the year 1611. Quakerism began about the year 1655. Methodism began about the year 1729. Secederism began about the year 1733. Cumberland Presbyterianism, according to Burder, began on Cumberland River about the year 1810. The church of God began in Jerusalem about the year 33.

We believe these embrace the most prominent organizations of this country, and we see that we can not get a single one, ex­cept the church of God, further back than the sixteenth century. Was the church without branches for the first fifteen hundred years of its existence? and did she bring no fruit during that time? Neither tree nor vine can maintain its life and bring forth fruit without branches; yet if these organizations are the branches, then it follows that the church was a branchless, fruit­less, lifeless thing until they came into being. Since then, in one-third of that time, it has put forth a host of branches, and branches of branches, and branches of branches of branches, until they have become so thick that we are inclined to think that the pruning-hook is necessary. Each of the branches differs in constitution, character, and fruit from all the others. Such a tree! such a tree!! What a monstrosity!!! A tree bearing apples, pears, peaches, apricots, quinces, plums, cherries, berries, nuts of all kinds, “hard-shell” and soft, melons, pumpkins, squashes, etc., etc., and yet all come from the same “incorruptible seed”—the word of God! Strange as such a sight would appear, it would take a tree with more different kinds of branches and fruits than we have mentioned to represent the church of God, if it has as many branch churches growing out of it as there are denomina­tions claiming to be branches of it at present. But we may be told that this variety was produced by grafting. If so, the graft­ing was not done by Paul, nor in accordance with his formula; for he speaks of branches which were “cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree.” Romans 11:24. Naturally, branches bear fruit like that of the tree from which they were taken, but Paul’s grafts bore fruit contrary to nature, like the natural branches of the tree into which his grafts were inserted, they were taken from the world, and were engrafted into Christ, the true Vine— made members of his body, or church; and, whether they were Jews or Gentiles, Christianity, or pure and undefiled religion, was the fruit. Therefore, if these sectarian parties were grafted branches of the one church of God, they would all partake of its “root and fatness,” and there would be no difference in them or their fruit. One could not bear sprinkling as baptism, another pouring, another immersion, another all three, and another none at all; another, vicarious atonement, total hereditary depravity, abstract spiritual operations, unconditional election and reproba­tion, and many other doctrines differing as widely as these do. Once more: Men usually take branches for grafting from other trees than the one into which they are to be inserted. It is true, Paul tells us that these natural branches that were broken off because of unbelief, might be grafted in again if they abode not in unbelief; but when they were broken off they were as for­eign as the unnatural branches. Then, as the one church of God is supposed to be made up of these branch churches, where is the trunk into which they were grafted? and where is the tree from which they were taken before grafting? Is this great church tree all branches? and from what church were these branch churches taken before grafting? These branches are churches, according to the theory, and not individuals. Then whence came they? They were not taken from the church of God, for there would be no use in taking a branch from a tree and grafting it back into the same tree. Then from what tree or vine were they taken? or, to speak without a figure, from what church did these branches come, before they became part and parcel of the church made up of them? It will not do to say they were taken from the world, for they came from there as individ­uals, not as organizations. And if we look at it under the figure of a great stream and its branches or tributaries, the same difficulties are in the way. As these organizations are branches, where is the main stream into which they flow? and where are the fountains whence they come? They come not from Christ, the Fountain of living water; for all the branches making up a great stream come not from the same spring, for then they would be a unit from the first, and there could be no branches at all. Then, if they come not from the inexhaustible Fountain of the human imagination, we know not their source. Let us go to Christ, whence flows the pure, limpid stream of living water, of which he who drinks shall thirst no more, but have a well of water springing up in him unto eter­nal life. But we do read of branches, and we will now try to find what a branch is. Jesus says, “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” John 15:5. Here, Jesus speaks of his disciples as branches of Him, and in Him. “Abide in me,” says He, verse 4. Paul speaks of himself and brethren as having been “baptized into Christ.” Romans 6:3. His baptism did not give him a literal entrance into Christ, but it gave him entrance into His body, or the body organized by His authority, by which a relationship was created like that of a vine and its branches, or a body and its members. The same writer tells us that “by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” 1 Cor. xii 13. By the authority and according to the teaching of one Spirit we are all baptized in water into one body, or church, and become members of it; and when speaking to the Romans, with regard to the same relation­ship, he says, by baptism we enter into Christ; and thus individ­uals, as such, become branches of Him, the true Vine; but an or­ganized body of persons or an organized church can not, as such, be termed a branch of the one body, or church, of God. If any one insists that it can, then we would gladly see the scrip­tural process by which such a relationship is created. We are profoundly ignorant of any such instructions, as well as any pre­cedent or authority of any kind authorizing it; hence when asked, as we frequently are, to what branch of the church we belong, we answer, that we claim to be an humble branch our­self, but know nothing about belonging to branches. Jesus, as King, has but one kingdom; as Head, has but one body; as Bridegroom, has but one bride, and is the Author of but one church, and His people should be one people, and no divisions among them. But we have heard persons—yes, indeed, preachers too—thank God for divisions, so as to furnish an or­ganization suited to the taste of every one, that the people may be without excuse for disobedience to the gospel. “Thank God,” say they, “that there are so many different denominations, each holding a different doctrine, that all can be suited. If our church don’t suit you, in the multitude of others you can find one suited to your fancy; so you can not fail to be suited.” Such persons, to say the least of it, have a different view of this sub-­ ject from that entertained by the Saviour, for He considered unity among His people as of the utmost importance, and prayed for it in His most solemn prayer to His Father: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” John 17:20-21. Thus we see that Jesus considered divisions among those claim­ing to be His people as a most fruitful source of infidelity; and He was not mistaken. We verily believe that divisions among those claiming to be the people of God have made more infidels than all the writings of Voltaire, Paine, Gibbon, Hume, Owen, and every other avowed infidel that has ever wielded a pen on the earth. A celebrated Indian chief, when asked by a mission­ary what he thought of the religion of the Bible, said: “Go home, and agree among yourselves, and then come to me, and I will consider the matter.” Hence Paul, unlike those who love and create divisions, said: “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you.” 1 Corinthians 1:10. But we have been asked why the Lord’s people are not one, if such be the import of His prayer? It is said that his Father always heard Him when He prayed, and not only heard Him, but granted His petitions, or that for which He prayed: why, then, are His people divided? Is it not possible that the class of persons for whom he prayed are all one? He prayed for unity among those who should believe on Him through the words of His apostles. He did not pray for such as might believe on Him through the traditions of their fathers, or the teachings of men’ as set forth in Disciplines, Confessions of Faith, Catechisms, etc., which might be taught them from childhood. These are the sources of much of the faith that is in the world, and persons whose faith comes in this way come not within the range of the prayer made by the Saviour. It is sometimes said that these different organizations are only as many different roads leading to heaven, and when we get there, we will not be asked which road we came, or what kind of conveyance brought us there. We are willing to grant that no such questions will be asked those who get there. But will we get there? This is the important inquiry. We would be glad to see proof of the fact that there are as many ways to heaven as there are denominations in the world, before we accept the doc­trine as safe. The greatest Teacher that has ever condescended to instruct man on this subject said: “Strait is the gate, and nar­row is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Matthew 7:14. Again He said, “I am the way.” John 14:6. The Pharisees, recognizing this fact, said: “Master, we know that thou art true, and teaches” the way of God in truth.” Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:21. Even wicked spirits gave testimony to the same fact, for through a damsel one said, “These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation.” Acts 16:17. Peter says “the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” 2 Peter 2:2. Verse 15, he says certain persons had “forsaken the right way.” And again, verse 21, he says “it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness.” Apollos “was instructed in the way of the Lord,” but when Aquilla and Priscilla found that he knew only the baptism of John, they “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” Acts 18:25-26. The Holy Spirit signi­fied that the way into the holiest of all was “not made manifest while the first tabernacle was standing.” Hebrews 9:8. Thus we find Jesus, the Holy Spirit, evil spirits, opposing Pharisees, apostles, and other disciples, all speaking of the way to heaven, but none of them speak of the ways, or in any way imply that there are more ways than one from earth to heaven; hence we con­clude that there is one way, and only one way. We read of “wicked ways,” “pernicious ways,” “the ways of death,” etc., but the way to heaven is so straight and narrow that it is found by few. Indeed, there can be but one straight line between any two points; hence those who do not travel the straight and nar­row way, must necessarily travel crooked ways, which are marked out by men, and not by the Lord. “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” Jeremiah 10:23. Surely, then, we had bet­ter walk as God directs. Guided by Him, we are safe, but there is safety nowhere else. But there is another thought connected with these organiza­tions which demands our attention just here. Quite a number of them recognize each other as orthodox, yet they differ very widely in their teaching upon matters vital to the interest of Christianity. As an intended compliment to the society of his town, a distinguished clergyman once said: “There is great una­nimity among the orthodox denominations of our town—that is, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Cumberland Presby­terians.” As the Christian Church was the only church, in the town alluded to by the gentleman, not mentioned in his list of orthodox denominations, of course it was regarded by him as heterodox—so much so, indeed, that it was important to specify the orthodox denominations, lest their “good name” be injured by an association with what he was pleased to call “Campbellism” under the general name of orthodoxy. We have no complaint to make as to the motives which prompted the statement, for we doubt not that it was made, as Saul persecuted Christians, in all good conscience, but we mentioned it because it gives us a pretty fair idea of the general use, or rather abuse, of this term; and we propose to examine briefly the claim of these denomina­tions to it. We have the word orthodoxy from orthos, right, true, and doxa, opinion, from dokeo, to think; hence its import, to think right—soundness of faith—a belief in the genuine doctrines taught in the Scriptures. Modern divines, however, define the term about thus: “Orthodoxy is my doxy, and heterodoxy is your doxy, to the full extent of your difference from me. Then, as or­thodoxy means to think right—a belief in the genuine doctrine taught in the Scriptures—soundness of faith, etc., it will be ex­pected that these so-called orthodox denominations will agree among themselves; for it can not be maintained that they are all sound in faith, and believe the genuine doctrine taught in the Scriptures, while they believe and teach doctrines contradictory to each other. Things which are equal to the same thing, are equal to each other; hence if each of these is equal to the genuine doctrine of the Bible, they will be found equal to or exactly like each other. Are they thus united, speaking the same thing? We will see. The Presbyterians say, “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and un­changeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.” Confession of Faith, chap. iii, sec. 1. The Methodist, Baptists, and Cumber­ lands say: Not so: it comes to pass that men kill, steal, and do many other things which God has positively forbidden; hence He could not have ordained that they should thus act, and then threaten the guilty with endless punishment for carrying out His own ordination. The Presbyterians say: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life and others fore-ordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus predestinated and fore-ordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.” Conf. Faith, chap. iii, sec. 3, 4. The others say: Not so: every man may make his election or condem­nation sure, as he chooses; hence they seek with commendable zeal, to increase the number of the elect, and thus diminish the number of the reprobates. Presbyterians say: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, where, and how he pleaseth; so, also, are all other elect persons who are incapable of being out­wardly called by the ministry of the Word. Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore never can be saved.” Conf. Faith, chap. x, sees. 3, 4. The others say: Not so: all infants,’ dying in infancy, are saved; and all other persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, are saved, if they die in that condition. The Presbyte­rians, Baptists, and Cumberlands say: “Once in grace, always in grace”—that is, after a man is truly converted, he can not fall away and be lost. The Methodists say: Not so: let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall; for though he be a child of God, an heir of heaven, still there is great danger that he may fall away and be lost forever. The Presbyterians, Meth­odists, and Cumberlands say that infants of believing parents are proper subjects of baptism, and are entitled to membership in the church. Baptists say: Not so: faith is a prerequisite to bap­tism, and as infants can not believe, they should not be baptized. They are not capable of appreciating law, and hence are not sub­jects of government, and therefore are not fit subjects for the Lord’s kingdom. Presbyterians, Methodists, and Cumberlands say that baptism is rightly administered by sprinkling or pouring water on the head of the candidate. Baptists say: Not so: there is as much authority for putting water on the feet as on the head for baptism. The Presbyterians, Methodists, and Cumberlands say all Christians should eat at the Lord’s table together when convenient. Baptists say: Not so: Presbyterians, Methodists, and Cumberlands are good Christians, and therefore fit to surround the throne of God in heaven, but they can not eat at a Baptist table. When they come to our house, they may preach, pray, sing, exhort, and labor for us, but they shall not eat with us. Presbyterians say, “Neither are any others redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.” Conf. Faith, chap. iii, sec. 6. The others say Christ tasted death for every man. And thus we might multiply differ­ences almost ad infinitum. Now is it possible that these contra­dictory doctrines are all the “genuine doctrine taught in the Scriptures?” They are the doctrines of these so-called orthodox denominations. Orthodoxy means “to believe the genuine doc­trine taught in the Scriptures.” One of two things is, therefore, certain: the Scriptures teach these contradictory doctrines held by these denominations, or the word orthodoxy is a misnomer when applied to them, and they have no right to appropriate it to themselves. But say they: “We all believe in one great God, the Author of the Bible, the efficacy of the blood of Jesus, the operation of the Spirit in conversion, the importance of a hearty faith in Christ as the Saviour of sinners, a thorough change of heart, and repent­ance for sins committed, and a turning from sin to holiness: and as we are agreed in these great leading features of the genuine doctrine of the Bible, we claim to be orthodox, though we may and do differ in these minor matters of which you have been speaking.” But stop! Do we not believe in these great leading features of doctrine, and insist upon them as strongly as you do, and do you not still regard us as heterodox? What, then, is the matter? It must be something else that constitutes you orthodox and us heterodox. What is it? It is this: these denominations all unite in telling penitent simpers to come to the altar, anxious­ seat, or mourner’s bench, to pray and be prayed for in order to remission of sins, and we tell the same persons to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission. This is the true secret of the whole matter. Here is the line between so-called orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Can they find authority for their instructions in the Bible? Not if the salvation of the world depended on it. Can we find authority for our teaching in the Bible? Most assuredly we can find it, both in precept and ex­ample. We have the precise words: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” Acts 2:38. “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” Acts 22:16. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Mark 16:16. Then, if to believe and teach the gen­uine doctrine taught in the Scriptures constitutes orthodoxy, we are orthodox according to the true import of that term. There is no escape from this Position. From our very heart have we been grieved at efforts made to make Christianity look as much like sectarianism as possible, in order to court the popular cant of orthodoxy. While we continue to believe and practice the genuine doctrine taught in the Bible, we are orthodox; but when we forsake these truths, in order to get the world to call us orthodox, we give evidence that we love the praise of men more than the approbation of God. ’Tis better to show that we have a valid claim to the title, by believing the truth, than seek to make our faith look like error to induce the world to call us orthodox. But we often hear persons say, when called on to obey the-. gospel, that “there are so many denominations differing so widely from each other in their teaching of what is in the Bible, that we know not which is the right church. They all teach dif­ferent doctrines, and hence may all be wrong, but can not all be right, for the Bible must be harmonious in all its parts, if it be a revelation from God. There is the most perfect harmony in all His laws governing the material universe; hence we are not pre­pared to receive contradictory theories as law from Him for the government of His creature man, for whom all other things were made. We see not why His laws for the government of the nob­lest of His work, made in His own image, should be less harmoni­ous and perfect than laws given by Him in the great book of na­ture. We therefore conclude that some of these organizations, if not all, are spurious; and if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle?” Truly, this is a difficulty, but we beg such persons to remember that there never was a spurious coin yet that was not an imitation of something pure; hence, as there are spurious churches, we may be sure that there is one of pure origin somewhere; and we propose to assist the reader in recognizing the one body, or church of God, of which all others are counterfeits; and many of them but poorly exe­cuted, at that. We think that if we subject the church to the same criteria by which we test the identity of persons and things, it will be found with such marks, features and other means of recognition as will enable us to identify it with great certainty. Were you hunting for a man who was personally a stranger to you, whose name was Martin Luther, and you were to find a man whose name was John Wesley, you would know at once that he was not the man for whom you were hunting, unless he had changed his name. If you knew him to bear the character of an honest man, you would continue your search until you found a man wearing the name of the man you desired to see. Then, if you wish to find “the church of God” (1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1), and you find a church calling herself the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopalian Church, the Baptist Church, the Pres­byterian Church, the Methodist Church, or any other unscrip­tural name, is it not enough to cause you to suspect that you have not found the true church, and continue your search a little further? There are doubtless many good persons in each of these sectarian organizations, but this proves not that any one of them, or all of them together, is the church of God. God had a people in Babylon, but He admonished them to come out of her, that they partake not of her sins, and receive not of her plagues (Revelation 18:4). But we are told that there is nothing in names. Then why not as well expect salvation through one name as another? Speaking of Christ’s name, Peter says: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12. But if there is nothing in names, we may as well expect salvation through the name of Beelzebub as through the name of the Lord. If there is nothing in these denominational names, why think so much of them as to prefer to wear them rather than the name that honors Christ our head? Do they not tend to keep up divisions and gender strife among good people? and if there is nothing in them, why not give them up? Let us not strive about words or names, to no profit; for if there is nothing in them, we may give them up and lose nothing; but by exchanging them for the name authorized of God we may gain much. The church is said to be “the bride, the Lamb’s wife” (Revelation 21:9), and, as such, should wear the name of her Bridegroom. “The head of the woman is the man” (l Cor. 11: 3), and hence she honors her head by wearing his name; and she dishonors her head when she refuses to wear his name and assumes another. Suppose a citizen of your neighborhood were to marry a wife, and when she is called by his name, she objects to it, saying, “There are so many branches of my husband’s family that, for the sake of distinction, I prefer to be called by some other name,” and thereupon assumes another—perhaps the name of some other man of her acquaintance—what would you think of her? and how would you treat her if she were your wife? Would she not have dishonored you, as her husband? dishonored him whose name she wished to assume? and dishonored and dis­graced herself? and would you not regard her as unworthy to be your wife or enjoy the privileges of your house? Would she not have placed a foul blot upon her character, that would render her unworthy the confidence and respect of the virtuous and good of every age and clime? and would you not feel a little like telling her to go and live with him whose name she preferred to wear? What say you? Then if the wife of a citizen would so far dishonor her husband, and degrade and debase herself by refus­ing to wear the name of her husband, will it be less dishonoring to Christ for His bride to refuse to wear and be called by His name? and will it be less a blight upon the character of His bride for her to assume and wear other names than His? Will He own that organization as His bride, before His Father in the great day of the marriage, that has, owns, and willingly wears some other name than His? Will He say: “My wife hath made herself ready, and to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.” Revelation 19:7-8. Is the assumption of other names than that of the husband, the righteousness of saints that is compara­- ble to fine linen, clean and white, with which the church is to be clad as a bride adorned for her husband when he comes to re­ceive her? By the way, what will our Baptist friends do for a name now? They adopted the official name of John the Baptist as their denominational name, preferring to honor the servant of the Bridegroom rather than the Bridegroom himself; but the Bible Union, to which, as a church, they are fully committed, wiped the word Baptist from the revised edition of the New Testament, giving us “Immerser” instead thereof; thus, “John the Immerser.” (See revised New Testament, Matthew 3:1.) Will they keep pace with the translation and adopt the name “Immerser Church?” This would be rather wanting in euphony, to say the least of it; but the word Baptist is not in the revised Scriptures put forth by the Bible Union at all. They have very correctly and faith­fully translated the original into Immerser, and every scholar, if honest, will approve the translation. Then, will they give up the name Baptist? The late John Waller, of Kentucky, saw this in prospect, while president of the Bible Union, and said: “If a faithful and pure version of God’s holy word takes from me my denominational name, then I say let it go! LET IT GO!! LET IT GO!!!” Are his surviving brethren capable of rising with him above every earthly consideration to a reception of the name given in a pure version of God’s word, to the exclusion of every thing else? To this question time will furnish an answer. Another means of knowing persons and things is by their age. If you wish to find a man known to be forty years old, and you meet a lad of ten or twenty years old; or a man whose whitened locks, furrowed cheeks, and bowed frame betoken that the weight of many years is upon him: in either case you will know that this is not the man you wish to see; and this assurance will be made doubly sure if he wears not the proper name. The church of God, like every thing not eternal, has its age; and as the age of a man is reckoned from the time of his birth, so the age of the church is computed from the time of its organization. We have seen that this took place on the first Pentecost after the crucifixion of the Messiah; any organization, therefore, which began at any other time, either before or since, is not the church of God. Every theory teaching that the church began at any other time, before or since, is wrong—surely wrong. Were 1, or an angel from heaven, to teach that the church of Jesus Christ began in eternity—in the days of Abraham—in the days of John the Baptist—it would be error, and unworthy of reception. Again: The record says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea; and had any one appeared at the time He came, claiming to be the Messiah, who had been born anywhere else, he would have been known to be an impostor. Even so we have seen that the church of God was organized in Jerusalem; any organization, therefore, that began at any other place, is not the church of God. Should we find a church which began in eternity—in the garden of Eden—in Mesopotamia—at Sinai—in the Wilderness of Judea—at Augsburg—at Westminster—at Geneva—at Phila­delphia—on Cumberland River—or at Bethany—we would know it could not be the church of God. Again: The church of God was “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.” Ephesians 2:20. Should we find a church claiming to be built upon the experience of uninspired men, however wise and good they may have been, it can not be the church of God. Again: The organic law of the United States is the constitu­tion thereof. A government having any other organic law can not be the government of the United States of America. The or­ganic law of the church of God is the New Covenant dedicated with the blood of Jesus; hence any church having any other or­ganic law than this covenant can not be the church of God. The church that has the Mormon Bible as its organic law can not be the church of God. Why not? Because its organic law is the production of men, and not the covenant dedicated with the blood of Jesus. Then, can a church be the church of God, the organic law of which is the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Cumberland Presbyterian Confession of Faith, the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, the Methodist Discipline, or any other human production? Will the reader ponder well this question? The church of God is entered by a birth of water and Spirit; any church which admits to membership in any other way can not be the church of God. Hence a church that receives infants to membership can not be the church of God, because born of water they may be, but born of water and of the Spirit they can not be. All the subjects of the church of God know the Lord, from the least to the greatest of them: this being so, a church whose members are, in part, infants, can not be the church of God, be­cause such can not know the Lord. This line of thought-might be pursued much further; but we have seen that the church of God was organized in Jerusalem, nowhere else—on the day of Pentecost, at no other time—wears a name honoring the Bridegroom, and no other—is built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone, and other foundation can no man lay—has for its organic law the covenant dedicated with the blood of Jesus, nothing else, more or less—has only such members as have been born of water and of the Spirit, and know the Lord, from least to greatest. An organization, therefore, which bears all these marks of identity, may be the church of God; none other can be. If such an organization can not be found, then the church of God has no existence on the earth. Suppose a man were to come into a community with the con­stitution and by-laws of the Good Templars, and by teaching its doctrines he were to make a number of proselytes to its princi­ples, and were to initiate them according to its forms, and orga­nize them, at a particular place, as a body built thereon, what would we call the organization? A society of Good Templars. Very well. Another man comes with the Mormon Bible, and by preaching its doctrines makes proselytes to Mormonism, and or­ganizes them upon the Mormon Bible, according to its provi­sions: what shall we call this organization? A Mormon Church, most certainly. Very well. But suppose another man comes with the Presbyterian Confession of Faith and preaches its doc­trines, makes proselytes, and organizes them according to its provisions, what shall we call this organization? A Presbyterian Church. Very well. It would not be a Mormon Church, cer­tainly; and why not? Because it is not organized upon the Mor­mon Bible or indoctrinated with its teaching. Well, another man comes, and having the Methodist Discipline, he teaches its doctrines, makes proselytes and organizes them upon it as a basis of future action: what shall we call the organization? A Presbyterian Church? No. Why not? Because it has not been taught the doctrines of or organized upon the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. But it must be called a Methodist Church because it has been taught the doctrines of that Discipline and organized upon it. Then suppose another man comes with the Word of God, and by preaching its doctrines he makes proselytes and organizes them according to its provisions, to keep the ordinances therein inculcated, what shall we call this organization? Shall we call it a Presbyterian Church? No; the word of God, by which it has been created, says nothing about a church called by that name. Shall we call it a Methodist Church? The word of God says nothing about a Methodist Church. Shall we call it a Baptist Church? The word of God says not a word about a Baptist Church. Then, of what church does the word of God speak? It speaks of the church of God. Then, as the word of God is what was taught the proselytes, in accordance with which the organization was effected, and it speaks of the church of God, is not this organization likely to adopt a name found in its organic law? If so, we feel sure that we have given such marks as will enable us to find the church which has been the object of our search. Surely, it is worthy of all acceptation, and we will not seek another, but seek an entrance into this one.