THE CHURCH AS DISTINCT FROM THE

PARISH.

BY MRS. L. J. K. GIFFORD.

HAVE we heard of Dr. Mortimore's astronomical discovery? He has found that "the actual location of heaven is in the centre of the sun; that the sun is divided into three parts, first, the photosphere, an immense outside layer of light and heat, forever burning but never exhausted; next, inside of this, another broad layer of non-luminous void; and, finally, an inner globe, self-luminous and wholly separated from all outer life. This inner globe is heaven, while the antagonistic regions are in the outer photosphere. The intermediate non-luminous void is the great gulf across which Dives looked, when he saw Lazarus in Abraham's bosom. Is the doctor's astronomical discovery a prototype of the existing organization of Christianity?

I was requested to prepare a paper upon the value of the "technical church" as distinct from the parish. In my efforts to find the localization of this inner globe of light I found that I must grope my way through many a non-luminous, outer circle of parishes, societies, congregations, and pewholders, each vested with more or less of nominal religious power, and representing in a greater or less degree some shade of religious organization.

The question which appeals for discussion seems to be, whether one or more organizations are needful to carry on the religious work and keep up the interest and life of the parish. Can the church, with tests of membership resting on belief or religious character, accomplish a greater amount of good, than by waiving its nominal distinctions and allowing itself to exist and act in the fuller, freer, less formal and allembracing association of a society?

Let us look a little at the idea or notion of a church. Does it exist by our will, or is it a fact of the universe? We cannot deny the existence, in the world of man, of a spiritual

church or a spiritual force, reigning imperially at the heart of things; and what we mean by the visible or inner church is the expression and organization of this spiritual fact and force. It seems to be the active expression of the highest spiritual life, to the end of quickening, upbuilding and perfecting the same, in the heart of universal humanity.

Let us look at Dr. Hedge's definition of a church, which, though a little sounding, is perhaps as complete as any. “A church is the embodiment of a spiritual force, which, sallying from the heart of God, creates a vortex in human society, which compels the kingdoms, compels the æons in its conquering wake, and tracks its way through the world by a shining psychopomp of saintly souls." This definition embraces the origin, the nature, and offices of the church, and the signs by which its existence is made known. This definition seems a rendering of the idea of the "technical church."

What we wish to arrive at or approximate to is, the "kind and amount of ecclesiastical organization under the given circumstances best suited to transmit the Divine Spirit."

It is said that the census of New England and New York proves but an annual addition of one or two members for every particular local church in the wide domain of this unsurpassed and concentrated intelligence of Christendom. At this rate the nominal church will soon of necessity become extinct. Now if this inner circle of the church is deemed necessary as a reformatory agent in the world, or is ex officio a power therein, then is it a duty incumbent upon those in whom to-day the religious power is nominally vested, to look well to the reason for the existing state of things, with a view to remedial action.

I believe, for my own part, that we are not ready as individuals, as parishes, as communities, or as nations, to ignore or set aside that law of interdependence which exists between the spiritual fact and the material form.

It may be claimed by some that we have arrived at that stage of Christian civilization in which religious truths are so widely disseminated, and religious principles so thoroughly inculcated, that it is naturally and morally to be expected

that men and women will, in all of life's activities, be guided and governed by its sublime motives and lofty inculcations of duty. But is this state of things really so? "Are the traces of a divine renovation clear upon the face of Christendom?" Has Christianity become so thoroughly incorporated into art, into literature, into politics, into physiological life, that there is no longer need of especial organizations of religious power to promote its ends? I know that things look fair and beautiful to the eye of the superficial gazer. The varied forms of sin, of vice and crime, have risen into artistic dignity, yea, have taken rank even among the fine arts. They are embellished with all the appliances of wealth, the bewitching subtleties of manner, and the graces of intellectual culture. It is a hard thing to say to well-dressed gentlemen and ladies of the present day, that they have need of any additional Christian graces for the perfection of their character. A young clergyman, who had just entered upon his clerical duties, said to me not long ago, "I do not see that there is much to be done in the way of community reform. Men and women here in New England seem to be about as good as you can make them. With my present enthusiasm about Christian work, and my expectations of the profession, I think I had rather go west, where communities are less perfect and need more to be helped."

The homes of New England! Are they not indeed a striking commentary upon what Christianity can do for a people? They are the conservatories of all the domestic arts and graces, where order, frugality, neatness, family affection, intelligence (and do not these mean religion also ?), reign in beautiful supremacy. We can hardly look these men and women in the face to-day, and pronounce them unfit for the discharge of any of the offices of trust, activity, or obligation, which might arise from any social, civil, or religious relation. We meet men and women, every day perhaps, for whose individual benefit the church need no longer exist, whose spiritual life has no longer need of material agencies to quicken it for its most beautiful activities. They are ready to stand alone. The happiness of their lives is perhaps inde

pendent of foreign sympathy or support. They are ready for the spiritual church, for the church "without priest and without ritual." We may perhaps admit this degree of perfection for some and for many individuals. But, being independent of, and rising above the support of the church, they virtually become the church itself, and constitute, through spiritual achievement, the strengthening and upholding power.

It appears that many and most of our independent thinkers and livers, who recommend the nominal extinction of the Christian Church, and the establishment of religious societies upon a freer and less formal basis, have themselves been the children of the church, the sons and daughters of her special, as well as hereditary culture, and her unceasing and protecting care. They were cradled in her embraces, and rocked to infant slumbers with lullabies that sang of the beautiful and beloved Jesus. They were reared in its forms and discipline, "grew great in its greatness and strong in its strength." But with a full consciousness of their own condition they cannot seem to descend to the lowlands of the erring and the lost, and comprehend the slow and toilsome steps necessary to ascend the broad table-lands of their own spiritual elevation. They do not seem to comprehend the very purposes for which the church exists. A modern philosopher says, "that the chief use of a college education is, to teach men its worthlessness; that what they are with it, they could just as well have been without it." It would seem that the church performs a similar office for many individuals. But as this fact of the college comes only to those who have received the discipline of the college, so this strength that can do without the church is often born of the disciplinary power of the church itself. Perhaps the philosopher Emerson is the most striking example and illustration of this class of individuals. Coming himself of a long line of ancestral clergymen, and discharging personally the duties of the priestly office for a period of years, he stands to-day, clear of the priestly robes and titles, aloof from church relationship or church worship; and, besides representing the loftiest achievement of American literary culture, is himself an un

failing source of religious stimulus to the church. Shall we abolish our churches and turn them into hospitals as a fulfillment of his prophecy? or can we do without this most religious of philosophers? We must let him alone. He is a law unto himself. Let the church, then, as the representative on earth of Jesus, its great head, still exist for original ends and purposes. "I came not," says Jesus, "to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." I know not exactly how to say it, or whether it ought to be said, but Jesus appears to me as an example for the church rather than the world, for the saint rather than the sinner. I mean that he presents the example of a pure, spotless, and holy life, yielding itself up to the debased, the downtrodden. and the outcast, finding for them a path of light through the realms of darkness; ever standing with ready lips for the utterance of truths which the populace wildly decried, saying to those in high office, wrapped in their mantle of hypocrisy, "Wo unto you Scribes and Pharisees."

Jesus, through this life of utter self-abnegation, speaks to the church as his representative on earth. Now the church, as a reformatory agent, must achieve its results largely, like an individual, by force of character. There is ever for us, back of the truths and teachings of Jesus, his personality, the compelling power of his life. We are all slow to accept moral or religious instruction that is not well grounded and based upon personal achievement. If your teachings, we exclaim, are good for us, why are they not also beneficial to you? We say that the church, as a religious power, must act largely by force of character; and if it would achieve more thorough organization, what are the elements or forces which must be organized? Worldly or spiritual? Forces, antagonistic in their very nature, and diametrically opposed? A house divided against itself cannot stand. We say that the church exists for sinners; but sinners are not the church. If we look upon the church as a school, there are implied both teacher and learner; and it must be granted that from this standpoint it might embrace every shade of religious