The Church

The Church THE CHURCH
Delivered by G. C. Brewer

“Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? And they said, some say John the Baptist; some Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:13-19. This text will furnish us thought for the present study. The church is a big subject and may be discussed at great length and from different points of view or with different methods of approach. For this sermon, however, we shall confine ourselves largely to an analysis of the passage of Scripture which we have just read. There are various theories put forth upon this passage. In fact, it has been the battleground of centuries. It is the battleground beween the Catholics and the Protestants and has been since the Re-formation of the sixteenth century. The various ideas that are put forth upon this passage are, I think, based upon a misunderstanding of this figure of speech. That this passage is highly figurative no one can doubt. This is a beautiful metaphor which gives us a picture of a building erected by the Lord upon the rock foundation, and when the building is completed the keys are given into the hand of Peter, but this is only one picture that we have of the church. It is presented by other figures of speech in other passages of Scripture. But some people seem to think that this imagery should be kept in mind whenever we consider the church and that anything that is said concerning church must in some way fit into this picture. On this account we have come to think of church in detached and abstract manner. We look upon it as a thing apart from ourselves whereas we compose the church. We, if we are Christians, are a part of the church and whatever is said of the church is. said of the members that compose it. Hence, it is said of us. It is because people think of the church as something apart from Christians that we have so much error in the denominational world. The denominations as a rule teach that one may become a Christian and remain a Christian and still never be a member of the church. They teach that all Christians are first made Christians and then by an entirely different process are made members of the church. They also teach that Christians may have a church of their own choice. Thus Christians may live apart from all churches or Christians may make a choice among churches and become united with some particular denomination.

Another error is that the church is some sort of authority that must be respected by Christians and to which Christians must submit. Thus, the church means a group of officials who legislate for and control the individual members. It is not necessary to tell this audience that these views are wholly unscriptural.

Nevertheless, many of us who understand that Christians compose the church allow ourselves at times to have a view of the church that regards it as something apart from us but which we must never aid respect, defend and protect. We think of it as something that has been committed to our care and we are standing as guards over it. We feel that we must defend the church with our lives if necessary and we regard each other sometimes with jealously and envy and fight and devour each under the imagination that we are defending and saving the church. Surely we should know that in destroying Christians we are destroying the church. That we may see that Christians compose the church and that to persecute Christians is to persecute the church let us consider the following Scriptures. Paul said that beyond measure he persecuted the church of God and made havoc of it. (Galatians 1:13). He also said that he was not worthy to be called an apostle because he did persecute the church of God. (1 Corinthians 15:9). But how did Saul persecute the church of God? If you will turn to the ninth chapter of Acts and read the first verse, we have the statement that Saul breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord. Thus in persecuting the disciples of the Lord he was persecuting the church. We well know that he carried this persecution to the extent that he entered into the synagogues at the head of a deputation of officers to arrest and drag out of these assemblies any Christians that he might find there. He also went from house to house searching for Christians in the private homes of the city of Jerusalem and bringing them bound before the officers, having them scourged, in an attempt to force them to re-nounce their faith and to blaspheme the name of the Lord. He even gave his vote when they were put to death. He was on his way from Jerusalem to Da- • mascus, a city some one hundred and fifty miles from Jerusalem, with authority from the priests to arrest the Christians that he might find in that city and to bring them bound to Jerusalem when the Lord met him in the way. From that day on he knew that he had been in error and that in persecuting Christians ' he was persecuting Christ. In persecuting Christians he was persecuting the church. Christians are the church and the church contains all Christians. This is true because in becoming Christians men become at the same time and by the same process members of the church.

We may learn a little more about what the church is by considering the word church. The Greek word which is translated church is ecclesia and this word is compounded of the two Greek words elc, which means out, and lialeo, which means to call—to call out. The church, therefore, consists of a group of people who have been called out and called together. When it refers to the body of Christ, it means those who have been called by the Gospel of Christ out of the service of Satan and into the liberty of the Lord. This Greek word occurs in the New Testament about one hundred and fifteen times. However, three times it is used to designate that mob of people in the nineteenth chapter of Acts who at Ephesus were excited by Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen when they cried against Paul because he was preaching against idols and, therefore, against the images of the idols that these workmen were accustomed to make and to sell. That mob thus called out and called together by this cry is called an assembly or an ecclesia. Once the word is used (in Acts 7:38) to designate the group of people in the wilderness who had been called out of Egypt and were banded together under the leadership of Moses. The other one hundred and eleven times that the word is found in the New Testament it refers to the disciples of Christ, to the people of God who by the Lord Jesus Christ have been called out of darkness into light. This word church is not used as often in the Scriptures as some people seem to think it is. Only four writers of the New Testament even used this word. These writers are Matthew, Luke, Paul, and John. Matthew only records the word as it was used by our Lord Jesus Christ. lie used it twice and Matthew is the only one that records that fact (Matthew 16:18; and Matthew 18:15-21). Mark, Luke, and John do not use the word in their records of the life of Christ. Luke uses it some twenty times in the book of Acts. Paul uses it in all of his epistles. John uses the word in his third epistle and he uses it some twenty or twenty-one times in the book of Revelation. Peter, who is supposed by Romanists to have been the head of the church as well as the foundation upon which it was built, never one time uses the term church. It is true that he refers to the people that compose the church and gives some valuable admonitions to them, but he did not speak of them as a church. He never indicated that they were expected to respect him above others. When he spoke of elders, he called himself a fellow-elder, thus putting himself on an equality with those who in a local church do the work of ciders. That we may see that the people who are followers of Christ, by whatever term they are designated, are the same people who at times are called the church let us consider this point. The church is spoken of as the body of Christ. Ephesians 1:22-23 : “And he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”

Again Colossians 1:18 : “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead: that in all things he might have the preeminence.” Here we see that the church is the body of Christ and by reverse order the body of Christ is the church, but Paul says, “Now are ye the body of Christ and severally members thereof.” 1 Corinthians 12:27. Then Christians compose the body of Christ, and therefore, compose the church of Christ. In this twelvth chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul speaks of the church as the body and illustrates the relationship and function of the various members by referring to the. members of our physical bodies such as eyes and ears and hands and feet. Then having shown us that all of us are members he further says that God hath set some in the church, illustrating the position that dif-ferent men who had the spiritual gifts occupied. Here we see very clearly that the members in the body represent the members in the church. If we, therefore, love the church of God, we must indeed love the members and there must be no schism in the body. To foster factions and to misrepresent and mistreat our fellow Christians and then at the same time to sing “I love thy kingdom, Lord, the house of thine abode; the ehurch our blest Redeemer saved with his own precious blood”, smacks of hypocrisy. With this much said in reference to the church and with this lesson, we trust, plainly, we are ready to turn to a study of the text. The points about which there has long been much discussion are as follows:

(1) What is the rock?
(2) What relation does Peter sustain to this new institution?
(3) What do the “gates of Hades” mean?
(4) What is the antecedent of the pronoun it?

Let us take these questions in reverse order and consider first the antecedent of the pronoun. Some men say that the noun church is the antecedent and that the Lord promised that the gates of Hades should never prevail against the church. Another view is that the antecedent of the pronoun is found in the verb will build. Those who hold this view claim that the Lord meant that the gates of Hades could not prevent his dohig the thing which he here said he would do; namely, build the church. The thought is that he could not be prevented from doing what he purposed to do. He would build his church upon this rock in spite of all the forces of the Hadean world. This last view cannot be justified on the basis of grammar. It is impossible to make a verb the antecedent of a pronoun. Everyone knows this, but those who hold this view contend that the noun is understood in the verb. They say that the verb build includes the noun building and that this understood noun is the antecedent of the pronoun, but this doesn’t help the matter at all. If we make a noun here, building, and say that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against the building, of course that is equivalent to saying they will not prevail against the church for the noun building is the thing built, and therefore, it is the church. What these men are trying to do is to use the word building as a participle and let it have the meaning of a noun and thus to stand as the antecedent of it I We do not believe that this is a correct analysis of the language. We hold that the first view here mentioned is the correct one. That- is, that the noun church is the thing here referred to and the church is that which will never be overcome by the powers of evil. To this view the objection is urged that to say that the forces of evil would never prevail against the church gets us into a difficulty because it includes the old doctrine of a continuation of the existence of the church through all the centuries. Thus they say it lends comfort and strength to the doctrines of church succession. These objectors say that this doctrine is false, that the church has not existed through all the years from Christ until now. They claim that there is a period of time consisting of some thousand or twelve hundred years when the church could not be found on earth. They claim that the pages of history are blank for this long period of time. It is true that we cannot find the church through all of these ages. At least we can’t find a group of people in any definite location who were worshiping the Lord after the New Testament order or who were preaching the Gospel in its simplicity and purity. To admit this, we are told, is equivalent to saying that the forces of evil did prevail against the church; if we understand prevail to mean that the forces of evil should never at any time temporarily overcome the people of God and eclipse the cause of righteousness, then we must admit that this objection is valid. But if we understand the word prevail to mean that the forces of evil shall not finally and completely defeat the church, then we may see that this objection has no force. To see that forces may prevail and yet not ultimately triumph we have only to think of our own present situation. In this horrible war just now burdening our hearts and robbing our homes and killing our young men we see an illustration of the point in hand. When the war began, it is a well-known fact that the Axis powers prevailed over the Allies. France was defeated. Great Britain was exhausted and well-nigh defeated before we even entered the war. Then when the treacherous attack was made upon Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, we were given an inglorious defeat. Then they continued until they took away from us Guam, Wake, and finally the Philippines. They defeated our forces, led our boys captive, and later tortured and murdered thousands of them. They hauled down our colors, threw our flag into the gutter and trampled it beneath their feet. Surely the Japanese prevailed against the United States in those early days of this tragic war, but do we believe that the Axis powers will finally prevail over the Allies? No, we do not believe that! The tables have already turned, and our forces are now succeeding on the fields of battle, and we are hoping and praying for an ultimate defeat of our enemies in arms.

Another illustration of how those who cannot be defeated are prevailed over yet who at times suffered defeat at the hands of their enemies we have only to study the history of the ancient Jews. The Jews were at that time God’s people, and God had promised never to leave them nor forsake them. He had promised that he would give them victory over their foes and that they should possess the gate of their enemies. He said that he would bless all those that blessed them and curse all those that cursed them. He promised that no sword that was formed against them should prosper (Isaiah 54:17). He said that he would make a full end of all the nations where they were scattered, but that he would never make a full end of Israel (Jeremiah 30:10-11). He also declared that as long as the sun shines and as the moon reflects her borrowed light Israel should not cease from being a nation before him. (Jeremiah 31:35-38).

These promises are certainly as plain and unmis-takable in their import and as emphatic in their statement as the language of our Lord when he promised that the gates of Hades should not prevail against his church. Yet we know that the enemies of the Jews did defeat them in battle and take them into captivity. Even before they became an organized nation they were held as slaves in Egypt. The Egyptians were prevailing against them in a most drastic manner, but Egypt did not destroy them. Egypt has long ago ceased to be, but the Jews are still here. Later they were taken into captivity by the Babylonians and they remained in this foreign land and were the oppressed and abused subjects of this foreign power for seventy long years. Definitely we may say that Babylon prevailed over Israel. The Babylonians destroyed their capital, their temple, and devastated their land and held them in bondage for three score and ten years, but Babylon did not ultimately prevail over the ancient Jews. Babylon is gone from the earth and the sight of that ancient city is now the habita-tion of bats and owls and the place for fishermen to spread their nets, but the Jews are still here. Later on the Jews were in subjection to the Medo-Persian kingdom. They were scattered through the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of this silver empire, and we all know the story of how Haman plotted to have the Jews completely destroyed. All the sons and daughters of Abraham, at least those who were his sons and daughters through Isaac and Jacob, were now under the control of the Medes and the Persians, and a decree that according to the Medo- Persian rule could not be changed was issued for the complete extermination of this people. However, the devices of the wicked were brought to naught and the sons and daughters of Abraham escaped this slaughter. The Medo-Persian empire is gone from the earth never to return, but the Jews are still here. This proves that although the Jews were at times defeated and that their enemies did at times prevail over them, yet they were not ultimately defeated, and their enemies did not completely triumph. This is the only purpose that we have in referring to the Jews on this occasion, just as an illustration of the point about the gates of Hades prevailing against the church, but there will be questions in your mind on this point, and we will take time to answer at least the one that may trouble you most. You are going to say that the Jews now have no nation, that their power was completely destroyed many hundreds of years ago. Then you will want to know how God’s promise that they shall never cease to be a nation before him is now being fulfilled. It is true that the Jews do not now have a government of their own. They have no king, no capital, no flag, no country, and no temple that belong to them nationally. They are citizens in our government and are scattered among the other nations of the earth. Nevertheless, it is true that they continue to exist as a separate people among other peoples. There are about sixteen million of them still on the earth. In the sense of being a people they are still a nation, and the word nation has that meaning; it is from the Latin word natus which means to be born. They are a nation in the sense that they are a separate people and they always will be to the word of God. But someone may ask, “Why is God still preserving the Jews unless he has some future purpose for them?” That he does not have any special purpose for the Jews is made very plain by the fact that God is no longer a respector of persons and that the church is a new man composed of both Jews and Greeks and that when people enter the church they are not considered as either Jews or Greeks. They are Christians. The answer to the question is that the Jews are a monumental nation and they are preserved not as a favor to them but as an argument for God and God’s word. No stronger argument for the inspiration of the Scripture and for the correctness of its prophecies could be offered than that which is based upon the history of the Jews as well as upon their presence in the earth today.

If this answers the objection with reference to the gates of Hades prevailing against the church, we now turn our attention to the next thought.

It is said that since the word gates clearly indicates an opening through a wall which affords ingress or egress from some enclosure that it would not be correct to speak of the gates as prevailing against the church for that would indicate either that the church is on the inside of Hades, trying to get out, or else it is on the outside, trying to get in, and that in either case it will succeed since the gates cannot prevail against it. We well know that the church is not inside of Hades and also we know that the church is not endeavoring to get inside. Therefore, it is said that this language cannot apply to the church, but since our Lord Jesus Christ died and went to Hades, passed into the Hadean world, he would come out. The confines of death could not keep him. The gates could not contain him. He came forth from the Hadean world and did as he promised build his church. This they say is the clear meaning of the expression “gates of Hades cannot prevail against” the Lord’s purpose to build his church. It must be admitted that this is a plausible explanation, and though we do not regard it as a correct exegesis of the passage, we know that it states a truth. Our understanding of the term here is that the Lord by a metonymy refers to the forces that pour out from the gates, as the gates. He gives us a picture here of two cities. One is the church, the citadel of truth founded upon a rock. The other is the fortress of Satan. Through the gates of the city of evil the hordes of Satan sally forth to assault the church, but the Lord has promised that these forces shall not prevail.

We come next to consider the question of what is the rock upon which the Lord founded his church. This imagery is borrowed from the place where the Lord stood when he uttered this language. On the northeastern extremity of Palestine there was a little village by the name of Dan. This name is frequently used with the name Beer-Sheba for Beer-Sheba was in the opposite end of the land of Palestine. Hence from Dan to Beer-Sheba means the entire length of that ancient land of promise. About three miles east of the little own of Dan there had once stood an ancient city by the name of Panium. This city was even at the time of our Lord veiled in the mist of remote antiquity. The pagan who built the city and the heathen who inhabited it called the city Pan in honor of the god Pan, an imaginary deity being half-human and half brute who was supposed to be the god of shepherds. Pan was built upon a solid ledge of rock, but even before the days of Christ the city was in ruins and only the rock foundation remained. Herod Philip had erected another city on this solid rock foundation and called it Caesarea Philippi. This name was taken from Caesar, the emperor of Rome, and from Herod himself, who was Herod Philip. Thus we have the name Caesarea-Philippi. Not only was this city built upon a rock, but it was surrounded by a rock wall which was regarded by the people of that day as impregnable. It was near this rock-founded and rock- protected city that our Lord uttered the language which we are studying today. He purposed to build a church that would be more impregnable than even that city that stood before him and his apostles. We are told that the Lord promised to build this church upon Peter, for we are told that the word petrox means a rock, but we will observe that while the Greek word petros does mean a stone or a rock the Lord used another word when he alluded to the foundation of his church. Even the margin of our revised translation tells us that the Lord says “Thou art Petros (which is a Greek word in the masculine gender) and upon this petra (which is a Greek word in the .feminine gender) I will build my church.” The Lord simply followed the manner of Peter when he said, “Thou art the Christ”, and said, “Thou art Peter”, and then said, “upon this petra I will build my church.” Since the word petra is feminine gender it cannot refer to the apostle Peter. Neither can it here refer to our Lord Jesus Christ, for we could no more speak of him with a feminine term than we could speak of Peter by such a term. The rock then which our Lord here referred to was neither Peter nor Christ. But someone is ready to tell us that other pasages of Scripture definitely state that Christ is a rock and that he is the foundation. This, of course, is well known to all Bible students, but here again we come upon the error that was referred to in the beginning of this speech. We find men using a figure of speech in a double sense or mixing a metaphor. Because they find the Lord represented in some other figure of speech they try to make that representation carry through everywhere the Lord is alluded to. this is a grievous error. We are told that Paul says, ‘That other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Christ.” (1 Corinthians 3:9), So we are told that this settles the matter finally. The Lord is the foundation and that there is no other foundation. A moment’s reflection, however, should convince anyone that this is a misapplication of the point hpre presented. Paul says that he as a wise master- builder had laid the foundation. Does Paul mean that he laid the foundation of the church of Christ? Surely no one will take that position. The foundation had been laid. The church had been built and wras standing firm against the assaults of evil long before Paul was ever converted or ever entered into the kingdom of Christ. Then, of course, the foundation which he laid was not the foundation of the church in its universal sense. He simply means that he had laid a foundation of the congregation at Gorin, h. He had preached Christ there and any other preaching would not be acceptable. If people were converted to anything else or by anything else they would be disappointed in the day of judgment. But we are again told that Isaiah speaks of Christ as the foundation and as “a precious stone, a tided corner -stone.” (Isaiah 28:16). This is correct but here again we have a different figure of speech, and it does not at all interfere with Christ’s being represented in a different relationship by some other imagery.

Surely we know that figures of speech must always be consistent with themselves and that we cannot mix figures nor can we take the position that what Christ or anyone else may be in a certain figure, he will have to be in all other figures. The figures must be consistent and in our text the Lord is, not- either the foundation or the building. He is the builder. Peter is the door-keeper and the rock, whatever that is, is the foundation. We would hardly think of making Christ the builder and at the same time the building and still by another stretch of imagination the. foundation on which the building is erected. Christ may be anyone of these in a figure of speech or he may be all three of them in three separate figures of speech but he cannot be all three of them in one single figure of speech.

What then is the rock in this passage? It is the truth which Peter had just confessed—not necessarily the confession Peter made, but the thing confessed— that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is bound to be the central fact of the Christian rehgion. It is the one truth upon which the whole Christian system rests. If infidels could prove that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Christ, that he was not the Son of God, then they would overthrow completely the church of our Lord. All our faith would be vain. The apostles would all be false witnesses and the hope of life through Christ would be nothing more than a poet’s dream or an impostor’s promise. But as long as disbelievers of every type and of every degree of bitterness cannot disprove the claim of our Lord or overthrow the fact that Peter stated, just that long- will the foundation remain and the church stand un-shaken. Thus we see that the church will either stand or fall with this statement, this fact which Peter confessed. Could anything be plainer then than that this is the proposition upon which the Lord launches his movement, upon which he based his claim for the respect and reverence of men and upon which he promised to save men from their sins? This is the thing that all people must believe in order to be saved. Jesus said, “Except ye believe that I am he”, meaning except ye believe that I am the Messiah promised in the Old Testament Scriptures, “you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24). John says that the signs which he had written were written in order that we might believe. Believe what? Believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing we might have life through his name. (John 20:30). When the Ethiopian nobleman demanded baptism at the hands of Philip, Philip in turn demanded faith In the heart of the Ethiopian as a qualification and a prerequisite to baptism. He said, “If- thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest.” “Believe what?” we may ask. Was Philip anxious to know if this man believed in God? No. It was well known that he believed in God and had been on a long journey up to Jerusalem for the purpose of worship-ing God. Did Philip want to know if this man believed the Old Testament Scriptures? Again the answ7er is no. The man wTas reading the Old Testament Scriptures and earnestly concerned about the teach- >ng of that chapter that he was reading. It was not a question of believing it. It was a question of understanding it. Philip began at the same Scripure and preached unto him Jesus. Then naturally Philip’s demand is, “Do you believe what I have preached? Are you ready to accept the man that I have told you about as the one to whom the prophet alluded?” Thus according to our King James translation the Ethiopian responded, “I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This is the basic fact of the whole religion of our Lord and it is the faith that qualifies one to become a member of the church of the Lord. John says, “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth ifi him, and he in God.” (1 John 4:15). Ap;ain, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God; and whosoever lovetli him that begat loveth h.nn also that is begotten of him.” (John 5:1). And still again, “And who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:5). This shows that to believe in Christ or to confess, that he is the Son of God includes our complete acceptance of him as our Savior and this, of course, would include our submission to his authority, our obedience to his will. We become children of God by faith, for Paul says, “For ye are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many pf you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:26-27). This should be plain, but we beg to submit here a quotation from Alexander Campbell:

“Here then is the whole mystery of the Christian institution—the full confession of the Christian faith. All that is peculiar to Christianity is found in these words; not merely in embryo, but in clearly expressed outline. A cordial belief and clear conception of these two facts will make any man a Christian. He may carry them out in their vast dimensions and glorious developments to all eternity. He may ponder upon them until his spirit is transformed into the image of God—until it shines in more than, angelic brightness m all the purity and beauty of heaven’s love. Man glorified in heaven, gifted with immortality and wrapt in the ecstasies of eternal blessedness, >s but a mere result of a proper appreciation of an conformity to this confession.”

Some one may question the statement just made to the effect that Peter is the doorkeeper of the church. But this objection, like the others we have considered, arises from a misuse of a figure of speech. Peter was only placed in that position in this figure. Smce Christ had referred to his church as a building, founded upon a rock, it would be appropriate, to think of entering that building by a door, and doors are unlocked and opened by means of keys. Thus by carrying out the figure Christ announced to Peter that he wmild be given the privilege of first admitting people into this building which the Lord purposed to erect— this church or Kingdom.

It is thought by some scholars that Peter spoke for all the apostles when he made the confession and that the promise made to him also included all the apostles. If we understand this promise to delegate legislative power to Peter we would be compelled by the force of other scriptures as well as by the history of Peter’s work given in^Ac-ts to conclude that this promise of Christ was addressed to all the apostles. Peter had no power or outhoiity that the others did not have (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30 : Ephesians 2:19-20; Ephesians 3:5). Put Peter did have a privilege that the o'hers did not have. He was to be the first to bear witness of our Lord’s resurrection and glorification and to tell men of the salvation that is to be enjoyed in the name of Christ, (Luke 24:46-49; Acts 2:14-38; Acts 4:12), and he v’as specially chosen for this work (Acts 15:7). He named the terms or stated- the conditions upon which men receive the remission of sins, (Acts 2:38). And upon these terms men were then added to the church (Acts 2:47) ; upon the same tei ms men will be added to the church now. The question of becoming a member of the church—-the right church, the Lord’s church against which the powers of evil can never prevail-—is, therefore, answered once and forever. Just believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ with all your heart, rely upon him, trust his grace and mercy, put your case in his hands and give your life to his service—and let your faith find expression or be actualized and perfected by obeying the gospel (Horn. 6:17; II Thess. I :7-10; 1 Peter 4:16-17), or by doing just what the people of Penecost did (Acts 2:38)), and you will then be a member of the only church God ever authorized to exist.