uniformity may be established within her pale; to fix the bounds of congregations, presbyteries, and synods, that there may be no interference of interests and claims, and that each may confine itself to its own jurisdiction; to make regulations respecting their intercourse, and the transference of members from one place to another; to lay down rules for conducting judicial processes, that nothing may be done rashly or unfairly, but the ends of justice may be attained; to prescribe the education of candidates for the ministry, and the steps which are to be taken with a view to ascertain their qualifications, and to introduce them into office. With regard to such matters, it is evident that they imply no legislative authority, but merely the power of arrangement; that uniformity is not necessary throughout the whole Christian church, but only in particular divisions of it; and that the order may be varied, without impeding the general purpose of edification, according to the judgment of the church, founded upon the customs and circumstances of different nations and times. Let us proceed to consider the last part of ecclesiastical power, which is called potestas Saxpirin, or potestas judicialis vel disciplinaris, and consists in the exercise of discipline. Erastus and his followers, who denied the power of the church in toto, necessarily controverted the power of discipline, and maintained, that she had no right to exclude any from her communion; and that, in doing so, she encroached upon the prerogative of the civil magistrate, to whom alone it belongs to punish the guilty. The abettors of this opinion place the church in more disadvantageous circumstances than any other society. A state has power to protect itself from disorder and dishonour, by the restraint and expulsion of the lawless and unruly. Every other association lays down rules to be observed by the members, the infraction of which subjects them to censure, and it may be, to the loss of their privileges. It would be strange to suppose that the church alone is exposed, without defence, to have her peace disturbed, her laws violated, her reputation injured, by conduct inconsistent with her holy profession. To say that the civil magistrate ought to interpose to remedy such disorders, is to annihilate the church, or to make it exist only in name. In this case, the church and the state are the same; the privileges of the church belong to men as members of the state; and the state punishes them, not as unworthy disciples of Christ, but as disobedient subjects. To every person who has read and understood the Scriptures, it will appear that the church is a society specifically different from the state, and instituted solely for spiritual purposes. A person has a right of admission into it, not because he was born in the country where it is established, nor simply because he was baptized in his infancy, but because he makes a credible profession of faith. On this ground only can he claim the enjoyment of its privileges, which from their nature appear not to be intended for all promiscuously, but for those who in the judgment of charity are disciples of Christ. It is evident, that it is only on the same ground that he can retain them; and that, if he has forfeited his title by conduct which impeaches the sincerity of his profession, they may be justly suspended or withdrawn. If this be granted to be true,—and it is not conceivable that it can be disputed by any man of common sense.—the inference is obvious, that there must be a power lodged in the church to enforce the observance of her laws by censures and excommunication. When our Lord gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," we do not conceive that he conferred upon him a peculiar privilege, unless the words refer simply to the fact, that he was the person who opened the new dispensation to the Jews, by preaching to them on the day of Pentecost, and to the Gentiles by preaching to Cornelius. Whatever power is implied in these words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,"”* was common to him and the other Apostles, to whom the same words were addressed on another occasion.† Binding and loosing are expressive of authority, not only to declare doctrinally what are the obligations of Christians, and in what respects they are free, but to inflict and remove censures. The offender is bound when the church pronounces sentence upon him, and is loosed when he is restored to privileges upon repentance; and the proceedings are ratified in heaven, when they are conducted in conformity to Scripture. It appears that discipline was exercised in the primitive church. The case of the incestuous man is an example. He had committed a sin aggravated in itself, and highly discreditable to the Christian profession; and Paul commanded the Corinthians, "when they were gathered together, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver him unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord." He told them at the same time, that although they could not avoid all intercourse with the wicked men of the world; yet, "if any man that was called a brother was a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner," they were not to keep company, nor even to eat with him;§ and as we might have expected, he plainly signified that they were not to sit down with him at the table of the Lord. He directs a heretic to be rejected after the first and second admonition; and he calls upon Christians to withdraw from every brother that walked disorderly, and not after the tradition which they had received. Some of the Asiatic churches are reproved, because they had neglected the exercise of discipline. The charge brought against them is, that they had them that held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans," and "that held the doctrine of Balaam;" "that they suffered that woman Jezebel, who called herself a prophetess;" and the obvious meaning is, that, instead of employing the authority which they had received from Jesus Christ against such persons, they permitted them to remain in the church. 66 The rulers of the church have authority over the members. As it is their province to judge who should be admitted, and to inspect their conduct when they have been received into fellowship, so they have power to censure and to expel such as prove themselves to be unworthy. This is the natural right of every society, and it is given to the church by the special appointment of her Sovereign:Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine." "Exhort and rebuke with all authority; let no man despise thee."t The objects of the censures of the church are offences or scandals; by which are meant, parts of conduct which are contrary to the law of Christ, and are calculated to lead others into sin by the force of example, as well as to expose religion to reproach. They are public offences known to the church, or to some part of the members; for, with respect to those of a private nature, they ought not to be brought to light, unless the guilty person persist in them after private admonition; and to tell them in the first instance to the church, is to create a scandal, under the pretext of removing it. Offences are to be treated differently, according to the difference of their degrees. When they are of a lighter kind, and discover rather inadvertence than bad intention, a simple admonition will suffice: "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." A greater degree of guilt will call for a more severe expression of disapprobation, or a rebuke solemnly administered in the name of Jesus Christ, of which it is the design to affect more deeply the conscience of the offender, and to excite him to Matth. xvi. 19. § 1 Cor. v. 11. ** Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20, † Ib. xviii. 18. I Titus iii. 10. tt 2 Tim. iv. 2. Tit. ii. 15. +1 Cor. v. 4, 5. 2 Thess. iii. 6. ++ Gal. vi. 1. prayer for pardon and sanctifying grace. There are cases which require that the church should proceed still farther. Individuals sometimes commit flagrant and aggravated sins, which, although they do not necessarily infer the total want of religious principle, bring the sincerity of their profession into doubt. Such offenders are suspended from sealing ordinances, as they are called, till they have given evidence of repentance, and then they are restored to their privileges. This sentence is called the lesser excommunication, and the removal of it is termed absolution. They are not absolved from their sin,-for it is the prerogative of God alone to forgive it, but from the sentence of excommunication. The highest censure which the church has power to inflict, is called the greater excommunication, and consists in expelling the person from the communion of the faithful. The grounds of it are contumacy or the obstinate refusal to submit to admonition and rebuke, and perseverance in sin in defiance of all endeavours to reclaim him. We have an example in the case of the incestuous man, who was delivered "unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord."* Commentators generally suppose that these words imply something miraculous, and that the man was smitten with some bodily disease, through the agency of Satan, in consequence of which his health and strength declined. His spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord, if, through the Divine blessing, his experience of the painful effects of sin in this life, proved the means of leading him to repentance. But even in the present times, this highest censure may be still considered as the delivering of the excommunicated person to Satan. The world is the kingdom of Satan, and the church is the kingdom of Christ. Excommunication is the returning of a professed subject of Christ, who has proved himself to be a traitor and a rebel, to the kingdom to which he originally belonged. It declares that Christ is not his Lord, for he has refused to obey him, and that he is under the dominion of the prince of this world. He is sent back to him as an alien, who has no right to remain in the kingdom of Christ; because he has violated its laws, and is determined not to submit to them. Hence it appears that this sentence is very awful; since, when pronounced upon just grounds, it involves the eternal perdition of the person, if he continue impenitent. But the effects of the censures of the church extend only to the soul. It is a gross perversion of their design, to accompany them with civil pains, confiscation of goods, imprisonment, exile, or death; to deliver up the excommunicated person to the secular arm, as the Church of Rome does, with a hypocritical prayer that he may be mercifully treated, while it is her secret intention that he should expire at a stake. "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual." Power is given to the church, not for destruction, but for edification; and its object is the good even of those who fall under the severest censures. Like him whom she acknowledges as her Head, she has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked should turn from their ways and live; and her arms are opened to receive the penitent, and to restore them to a place among her children. ⚫ 1 Cor. v. 5. LECTURE CII. ON THE LAW OF GOD. Connexion of the Practical and Doctrinal Parts of Theology.-The Moral Law.-Remarks on the Ground of Moral Obligation; and the Source of Morality.-The Decalogue.-Rules for Interpreting It. THE System of Theology consists of two parts, the doctrinal and the practical. The former is the foundation of the latter. The natural order of things, therefore, requires that we should first consider the doctrines and then proceed to explain the duties which spring out of them. It is because God is our Creator, that he has a right to give law to us; and the relation in which he stands to us as creatures and as sinners, the dispensations of which we are the objects, and the privileges and blessings which he has bestowed upon us, supply the motives by which we should be excited to obey. In a course of ministerial instructions, these two parts are usually blended together. It may sometimes, indeed, be deemed expedient to go over the system in regular order, and, in this case, a separate illustration will be given of doctrines and precepts; but even then they ought not to be kept entirely distinct. No doctrine of religion should be expounded, without some statement of the duties to which it leads, and the motives which it furnishes; for all our discourses should be of a practical tendency. On the other hand, no duty should be inculcated, without a reference more or less explicit, to the doctrine or doctrines with which it is connected, and by the belief of which the heart is purified, and its powers are engaged in the service of God. The gospel is represented to be the doctrine according to godliness, or, the doctrine which inspires piety towards God, and respect for his authority. In the Scriptures, doctrines and precepts are often mixed; but sometimes they are exhibited separately. In the Old Testament, besides the precepts of the law of Moses which are delivered at great length in the Pentateuch, we have the Book of Proverbs, which is almost wholly composed of moral maxims and rules of life. In the New Testament, we have our Saviour's Sermon on the Mount, besides parables and discourses of the same nature in the Gospels; and of the Epistles, those of which the first part is devoted to doctrinal discussions, commonly conclude with a detail of duties which believers are bound to maintain. Some of the Epistles are the models upon which our systems are formed; and the similarity of arrangement is particularly observable in the Epistle to the Romans. The law of God, which is binding upon Christians, is contained in the Decalogue, or the Ten Words, as the Jews call it, because it consists of ten precepts, which were originally written on two tablets of stone; the first, comprehending the four precepts which enjoin our duty to God; and the second, the six which prescribe our duty to men. It is called the Moral Law, because the subject of its injunctions is not ceremonial observances, but moral actions; and to distinguish it from the positive laws, which were only of temporary obligation. Of this description was the ceremonial law, which prescribed the ritual of worship under the former economy, and the judicial law, which regulated the civil and political affairs of the Jews. The ceremonial law was abrogated when its typical institutions were fulfilled in Jesus Christ; and the judicial law was repealed when the Jews ceased to exist in a national capacity. The moral law, however, has no relation to times and places, or to one nation VOL. II.-65 more than another; but being founded in the relations of men to their Creator, and to one another, it retains its authority under all dispensations. It is commonly said that this law was originally written upon the heart of man; but the language is figurative, and, unless it be explained, conveys no idea to the mind. We understand by it, then, not only that man was endowed with intellectual and moral powers, or was created with a capacity to perceive his duty and feel its obligation, but that the knowledge of it was immediately communicated to him by his Maker. He was not left to find it out by reflection and reasoning, but was at once made acquainted with his relations, and the moral obligations resulting from them. In consequence of sin, this light became dim, so that the full extent of the region which it once illuminated was no longer perceived, and the objects which still fell within the sphere of vision, were not seen in their exact shape and dimensions. Accordingly, the moral code of heathen nations is imperfect, leaving out some duties, and exhibiting others in a mutilated form; but the notion of a moral law has been widely diffused, and some traces of it may be discovered among all nations. The Gentiles who have not the written law, do by nature the things enjoined by it, and show that the work of the law is written upon their hearts, by the operations of conscience, which sometimes accuses, and at other times excuses them.* The morality of heathens may be accounted for in two ways. It may be conceived to have been handed down to them by tradition, to be the voice of the law, which was given to our first parents, and revived by subsequent revelations, still speaking to men by the lips of their progenitors and teachers, who have inculcated from age to age the precepts which had been delivered to themselves by a preceding race. It may be supposed, again, to be the result of reasoning; a discovery made by the mental faculties employed in contemplating the principles, feelings, and instincts of human nature, and the circumstances in which it is placed, and in deducing inferences from them. This, however, is the work only of a few superior minds, and will not account for the existence of moral sentiments among all classes of men. I am disposed to think that heathen nations are chiefly indebted for their knowledge to tradition, although it cannot be questioned that the human mind is so constituted as to perceive the propriety or impropriety of certain actions, and to make them the objects of approbation or disapprobation. How insufficient reason is to discover a system of morality, we could not determine with precision, unless we had an opportunity to observe its success in a nation which was left solely to the light of nature. But where shall we meet with such a nation, since all mankind are derived from the same stock, and the original family was illuminated by revelation? Few of its rays may now shine in some regions of the earth; but we are not certain that they are any-where completely extinguished; that is, we cannot ascertain that any nation owes all its knowledge on this subject to its own insulated discoveries. But the general insufficiency of reason is evident, not only from the errors and defects in the codes of morality which have been drawn up with the aid of tradition by the most learned and civilized heathens, but from the difficulty which professed Christians have experienced in settling the foundation of their system, when they had resolved to be guided in the inquiry by reason alone. The first question which demands our attention, is the ground of moral obligation; and here we encounter many different opinions. If I ask why I should pursue one course of action rather than the opposite; one says, Because it is right; another, Because it is conformable to reason and nature; a third, Because it is conformable to truth; a fourth, Because it is agreeable to the fitness of things; and a fifth, Because it contributes to the general good. The fitness of things has been much insisted upon by some metaphysical writers • Rom. ii. 14. |