lem that then was, scattering its members throughout Judea and Samaria, even to foreign cities.

What a correspondence and in how many points! But adds Paul, "What saith the scripture?-the old scripture, coeval with Moses, and detailing the affairs of the Abrahamic family-"What saith the scripture? Cast out the bond woman and her son, for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.' Where now is the Jewish covenant church and people! Is the Christian church but the Jewish church enlarged and improved!! "What saith the scripture? Cast out the bond woman"one of the covenants-"and her son"-the people under it-from being, as such, the Christian church; "for the sons of the bond woman"-the offspring of the old Jewish covenant, the fleshly seed-"shall not inherit" or be heir with the children of the new institution, or the "free woman”who is the mother of us all-Jews and Gentiles, not as such, but as born of the Spirit.

What could be more conclusive? Abraham, the root of the Jewish nation, was great in faith and great in flesh He was the fleshly father of many nations, and of one nation great, and mighty, and prolific. But he is also the father of all that believe, circumcised or uncircumcised, because of his mighty faith. He was the root of the Jewish church by flesh. He is the root of the Christian church by faith Jesus, the Messiah, both in flesh and spirit, was his son, and is the author and founder of a new church, whose members are not born after the flesh, but after the Spirit—not of blood, nor of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the power or will of God.

The same Apostle to the Romans, 11th chapter, reasons on this matter farther, and in some points more fully and satisfactorily. The neucleus or germ of the Christian church were Jews as respects flesh, but not as such, but by faith in Jesus as the Christ, they became the germ of the Christian church. "Thou standest by faith." The other branches of the Abrahamic stock were broken off from any special relations to God. The nation, as such, was rejected. The believing members of it only were made participants of the root and fatness of God's spiritual olive tree. Gentiles, not as such, but such of them as "had obtained like precious faith," were grafted in among the believing Jews and made participants with them of all spiritual privileges-of "the root and fatness," the benefits and blessings spiritual of "the good olive tree." The Jews, then, not as such, were broken off, but because of unbelief,-and the Gentiles, not because of flesh, but of faith, were grafted in among them. So Paul reasons with the Romans, and in another figure and with other illustrations than those presented to the Galatians, establishes the same great fact,-that the Jewish church is not the Christian church, either in covenant or citizenship, either in immunities or honors. The members of the former were born of the flesh-the members of the latter, by faith. The privileges and honors of the one were worldly and temporal-of the other, spiritual and eternal.— Let no one, then, count on parentage, natural birth, or worldly covenants guarantying lands and tenements, worldly riches, and honors, for introduction to the church of Jesus Christ the Son of God and the son of Abraham; for "without faith it is impossible to please God," and "unless a man be born of the Spirit and of water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," now established and administered by Jesus Christ. Let all Pedobaptists remember "what saith the scripture"-"not the children of the flesh, but of the Spirit, are now counted for the seed." "Cast out," then, "the bond woman and her son; for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we (Christians) are not sons of the bond woman but of the free." We are not baptized because of our fleshly descent from members of any church, but because "born from above-born of the Spirit." "Stand fast, then, in the liberty

For

wherewith the Messiah has made us free, and be not again entangled with the bondage and tyranny of a law of outward rites and ceremonies. we are the true circumcision, which worship God in spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh."

We have, then, not only attempted to show that infant baptism has no authority in the New Testament, direct or indirect, in the form of precept or of precedent-in the form of allusion or reference, expressed or implied; but we have gone farther-we have attempted to show that it is impliedly contrary to some of the clearest developments, statements, and reasonings of Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets; and still farther, we presume to say, that it is, in all its assumptions and pretences, not only void of authority, but expressly in conflict with many testimonies of the holy scriptures, and with the whole genius, spirit, and letter of Christianity, as revealed to us in that Holy Book by which we are all to be judged in the great and glorious day of the Lord. Of course it remains; then let it remain with every reader to say whether, on a careful and impartial examination of the whole premises before him, we have succeeded in all that we have attempted, and scripturally and logically formed our judgment, and expressed in justifiable terms our convictions, sustained by reasons and authorities on which he can safely rely. If so, then let him see to it that he consistently acts in conformity to his own convictions, and as he would wish to have done when he appears before the Searcher of all hearts, who will render to him according to his opportunity and his works.

There yet remains another argument, with which we shall close this branch of the subject. It springs from the remarks just now made. It is founded on our personal responsibility. Every man must answer for himself; and in doing this, his talents, opportunities, and dispositions will be taken into the account. If, then, the future and final judgment is to be according to every man's work, personal liberty and personal responsibility are established on such premises as make it absolutely indispensable that every one think and examine for himself, and act from his own convictions. Need I ask, How, then, can any one act by proxy in the things of salvation? or how can any one be finally justified or condemned for that which is not his own act?

A grave question then must be, Are parents or their children to answer for neglect in the case of baptism? It must be the duty of parents to have their children baptized; or it is the duty of the children to be baptized on their own responsibility. It cannot be the duty of both. Pedobaptists contend it is the duty of parents, and not of their offspring. But where the precept or the example so obliging parents? No one can show a word in the New Testament on the subject. It is, indeed, the duty of the subject of baptism himself to be baptized. If so, then he must be an intelligent, voluntary, or moral agent; and such an infant is not; therefore, he cannot be a subject of baptism in his own right.

But the doctrine of Christ constitutes the subject of baptism an intelligent, voluntary, and accountable agent, and, therefore, commands him to believe, repent, and be baptized on his own conviction of duty and interest. Personal liberty of choice is, on all hands, admitted to be essential to personal responsibility. Christ's people are all free men; therefore, no one, by parent, by sponsor, or by priest, can be carried or compelled into the kingdom of Jesus Christ. If so, they may be physically carried to the Lord's table and to heaven, and neither illumination nor volition, neither the conscience nor the heart, have any thing to do with our entrance into the church or our participations of its spiritual blessings. He that assumes this ground, is not to be reasoned with by any one that "trembles at the word of God." A. C.

DISCIPLINE.-No. X.

AT the conclusion of our third number, having shown the importance of and scriptural authority for church discipline, we arrived at the question, How shall it be administered? But in order the better to understand this question, we found it essential to digress a little and inquire into the proper scriptural organization of a church. In this digression we have ventured to look a little into various other matters bearing upon the main subject of inquiry, and to bring into our aid such collateral light as might tend to dissipate any obscurity, which either a superficial inspection or too great reverence for tradition may have thrown over our subject. The result of this search is now before our readers; and, so far as it may have been successfully prosecuted, we beg leave briefly to recapitulate.

In the first place, then, the organization of a church consists in the selection and instalment of such officers as are scripturally designated and required. No church, therefore, can be scripturally organized that has not these offices and officers; nor can any church, since there is an apostolic model, be scripturally organized, that has offices or officers not of apostolic nomination.

2d. The officers designated in the apostolic directory are two, and but two; to wit:-Bishops, sometimes called Presbyters or Elders, and Deacons.

3d. Of each of these there was to be a plurality in every church: how many of each may be a matter of discretion, to be determined by the wants and interests of the church; but, according to the model of the synagogue and the history of primitive times, in no case should there be less than three of each. Every church organized according to primitive example, must have at least three Elders or Bishops, and three Deacons, and as many more of each as circumstances may prove necessary..

4th. The Elders or Bishops, thus appointed, composed what is scripturally denominated the Presbytery or Eldership, the members of which were all of equal official rank and authority-no one having official supremacy over the rest; and the modern distinction between Bishop and Presbyter being in no case authorized or recognized.

5th. From the necessity of the case, the model of the synagogue worship, and other indications of primitive usage, it appears that the Eldership designated one of themselves, whose duty it was to take the lead in their proceedings and act as the President of the PresSERIES III.-VOL. V.

50

bytery. This distinction, however, conferred no additional official power; but, from its greater labor and responsibility, might justly entitle him, who for the time held it, to greater honor.

6th. The duties of Elders are not formally defined: the first institution of the office is not stated; but the circumstances under which it is first presented to our notice, by the sacred historian, indicate strongly that it was adopted from the worship of the synagogue. But although the duties are not formally defined, these may be gathered as essential:-1. To rule; 2. to take heed of the flock; 3. to watch against heretics; 4. to feed the church; 5. to teach the disciples; 6. to labor in word and doctrine; 7. to confute gainsayers; 8. to exhort; 9. to be conspicuous for hospitality; 10. to lay on hands in ordination. 7th. Elders must be supported by their congregation, and that according to the usual principles of justice which obtained in other cases, where service is rendered. "The laborer is worthy of his hire;" and "who goeth a warfare, any time, at his own charges?" What right has a congregation to devote their own time to their own private ends and uses, and then ask an Elder to sacrifice his to their service, free of compensation? A congregation may not need the whole time of all the Eldership-nor, indeed, the whole time of one member; yet so much service as they need they ought to have and to pay for. There are many duties imcumbent upon the Eldership. These may be distributed among them; and, according to the time and talents devoted to their discharge, ought to be the remuneration. This is what Paul means when he says, "Let those (Elders) who labor in word and doctrine be counted worthy of double honor.”— We do not teach our own children, nor do we rule over ourselves in the State: we appoint teachers and rulers, and pay them for their services. Upon what principle of justice, or by what precept of scripture can we claim the right in the church, in like manner to appoint our teachers and rulers, receive their services, and yet withhold from them a just and fair compensation for the benefits they confer? Know ye not, brethren, that they who wait at the altar, are partakers with the altar? We hear much talk about the "inefficiency of the Eldership," and we have listened with an interested ear to it; because there is in it something alarming to the friends of gospel order and triumph. The cry is growing louder over the land, and its echo is, "Organization,” “Organization,”—“a Convention," "a Convention." But what do we mean by organization? Wherefore shall we meet in convention? Are we to startle the shades of Apostles, by striking at the model of organization delivered by them? Or is there authority and wisdom in a convention to strike out some new

method of efficiency, better than that we call primitive? Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall. Our Elderships are inefficient: we know it too well. But wherefore? Is it because it is not a good system of church organization, or is it not rather because the churches do not support the system? If a man of strong physical organization were to withhold from his body its necessary food, and then, because his system did not work well, were to set about abusing it as inefficient, would we not call him a simpleton? The case is parallel. The church withholds from its Eldership a support; the Eldership, per force, becomes inefficient; and then, in addition to the sin of neglect, the church adds that of reproach, and cries out against the Eldership, Inefficient! Inefficient! But where lies the fault? Surely in the congregation, for not sustaining the Eldership in such a way as to make it efficient.

The duties of the Eldership are primarily the duties of the church; the authority of the Eldership is primarily the authority of the church. The Elders, then, are not acting for themselves, but for the church. Now suppose I am bound to execute a certain piece of work, have I any right to call another to do it in my stead without compensating him for it? No. But again:-Suppose the piece of work is one requiring a high degree of skill, and one which it is an honor to be engaged at. I can procure the service of A gratis; but those of B will cost me fifty dollars. A, however, is not competent to the work, while B is. Nevertheless, to save fifty dollars, I employ A and trust the job to him. Finally I come to settle with my original employer. He finds the work a botch and refuses to pay for it. I plead that I gave it out to A, and the fault is his. But does not every one see that the duty was mine, and therefore A's incompetency is my fault? I ought to have provided a competent workman, no matter if he did cost me fifty dollars. Now this appears to us, from no very limited observation and reflection upon the state of our churches, to be a true parallel to the case of many congregations. The duties of the Eldership they are in duty bound to have performed. A, B, and C are either unqualified for the services or else so much engaged in providing things necessary for the support and education of their families, that they cannot devote themselves so wholly to the work as is needful; yet they can be procured without cost, because- —we will not say why. But E, F, and G are very competent, and one or all of them are willing to devote so much time to the labors of the office, as will be requisite. But for doing so they demand a compensation. The amount of service can be computed: perhaps one of the three can perform the principal