ponding most accurately to the spirit, both of the declaration and of the injunction. At the very time that he was carrying the decree to the churches, he circumcised Timothy, whose father was a Greek, and whose mother was a Jewess. He did it because of the Jews who dwelt in those parts; considering that Timothy would be a more useful minister of the Gospel amongst them, and more likely to overcome their antipathy to the faith of Christ, when it appeared that neither he nor the apostle, from whom he had received the knowledge of the Gospel, had any objection to his acknowledging his hereditary connexion with the Mosaic dispensation. But when cer

tain Judaizing teachers, who wished to bring Christians into bondage to the ceremonies of the law, would have compelled Paul to circumcise Titus, who was a Greek, he did not yield subjection to them, "no, not for an hour."t In a matter of indifference, he had voluntarily accommodated himself to the prejudices of the Jews: but when an attempt was made to impose that matter of indifference as a matter of conscience, he asserted the liberty of Christians; and thus by these two parts of his conduct, considered as a commentary upon the apostolical decree, he has set an example to the Christian world of the distinction which ought always to be maintained, between liberty of judgment and liberty of practice.

The principles, which may be educed out of the Scripture instances which I have mentioned, apply to all that has ever been known in the Christian church under the name of rites and ceremonies. While they vindicate the lawfulness of this branch of the potestas daraxtixŋ, they serve also, when fully considered, to establish the rules which ought to be observed in the exercise of it; and they illustrate the foundation and the measure of that obedience which is due to the enactments.

The rites and ceremonies of the Christian church, agreeably to the general rules of Scripture, ought to be of such a kind as to promote the order, the decency, and the solemnity of public worship. At the same time, they ought not to be numerous, but should preserve that character of simplicity which is inseparable from true dignity, and which accords especially with the spiritual character of the religion of Christ. The apostles often remind Christians, that they are delivered from the ceremonies of the law, which are styled by Peter “a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear." The whole tenor of our Lord's discourse, and of the writings of his apostles, elevates the mind above those superstitious observances in which the Pharisees placed the substance of religion; and, according to the divine saying of Paul, "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."|| The nature of this kingdom is forgotten, when frivolous observances are multiplied by human authority; and the complicated expensive pageantry of Roman Catholic worship, together with the still more childish ceremonies which abound in the Eastern or Greek church, appear to deserve the application of that censure which the apostle pronounced, when he represented the attempts made in his days to revive the

Mosaic ritual, as a "turning again to weak and beggarly elements."* The multiplicity of external observances is not only an unnecessary burden, to which Jesus did not mean to subject his followers, but it has a tendency to substitute "the rudiments of the world," in place of a worship "in spirit and in truth." While it professes to render the services of religion venerable, and to cherish devotion, it in reality fatigues and absorbs the mind; and it requires such an expense of time and of money, that, like the heathen amidst the pomp of their sacrifices, Christians are in danger of thinking they have fulfilled their duty to God by performing that work, which the ordinance of man had prescribed, and of losing all solicitude to present to the Father of Spirits that homage of the heart, which is the only offering truly valuable in his sight. Further, all the Scripture rules and examples suggest, that in enacting ceremonies, regard should be had to the opinions, the manners, and prejudices of those to whom they are prescribed; that care should be taken never wantonly to give offence; and that those who entertain more enlightened views upon the subject should not despise their weak brethren. Upon the same principle, it is obvious, that ceremonies ought not to be lightly changed. In the eyes of most people, those practices appear venerable which have been handed down from remote antiquity. To many, the want of those helps, to which they had been accustomed in the exercises of devotion, might prove very hurtful; and frequent changes in the external parts of worship might shake the steadfastness of their faith. The last rule deducible from the Scripture examples is this, that the authority which enacts the ceremonies should clearly explain the light in which they are to be considered, should never employ any expressions, or any means of enforcing them which tend to convey to the people that they are accounted necessary to salvation, and should beware of seeming to teach that the most punctual observance of things in themselves indifferent is of equal importance with judgment, mercy, and the love of God.

If there is an authority in the church to enact rites and ceremonies, there must be a correspondent obligation upon Christians to respect that authority; and the same considerations of order, decency, and edification, which establish the existence of the authority, require the obedience of Christians. The more nearly that the manner of exercising this authority approaches to the rules which we have educed out of Scripture, it will the better answer the purpose of the institution, and will be entitled to the more willing obedience. But it must be carefully marked, that the rules, which those who exercise the authority ought to prescribe to themselves, are not the measures of obedience. There is no authority vested in the hands of fallible men, which is, upon all occasions, exercised in the best possible manner. Yet we do not conceive that the subjects of civil government are absolved from their allegiance, merely because they think that the laws prescribed to them might have been enacted with more wisdom. From the peculiar nature of the potestas diaraxTix, there is hardly a possibility of its being exercised in such a manner as to give entire satisfaction to every understanding. Between the unnecessary mul

• Gal. iv. 9.

tiplication and parade of ceremonies upon one hand, and a hurtful deficiency upon the other,-between the regard which antiquity claims upon one hand, and the consideration due to occasional offence upon the other, the shades are numberless; and were the precise medium always attained by those who have authority, it might, for opposite reasons, be condemned by persons of different habits and views. The rule of peace and order, therefore, with regard to the members of the Christian society, is compliance with the ceremonies which are established by authority, unless they appear to them unlawful. In particular circumstances, they may find it necessary to protest against a multitude of ceremonies which they consider as burdensome, or against any attempt to impose things indifferent as a matter of conscience. But if there is nothing unlawful in the ceremonies that are appointed, they have need to deliberate well whether it is justifiable for such a cause to disturb the peace of society, or whether it is not more agreeable to the quiet, condescending, and accommodating spirit of the Gospel, while, by judging that the things are indifferent, they keep their minds free from bondage, to maintain that conduct which "gives none offence to the church of God."

This last was not the judgment of that description of men known. by the name of Puritans, whose opposition to this branch of the potestas daraxtin forms a large portion of the ecclesiastical history of Britain for above a century, and produced very important effects upon its civil government. Early after the Reformation, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Puritans objected in general to the lawfulness of imposing ceremonies by authority, as an abridgment of the liberty of Christians in matters not commanded by the word of God; and they objected, in particular, to the vestments appointed to be worn by the clergy in their public ministrations, because, having been worn in times of Popery, they had then been abused to superstition and idolatry. They objected also to the lawfulness of using the sign of the cross in baptism, of kneeling at the Lord's supper, and of other observances of the like kind. The objections were answered by asserting the power of the church in regulating matters indifferent, by stating the prudential considerations which led the church of England to retain some of the popish ceremonies, in the hopes of keeping the Papists within the church; and by declaring, as is done in the preface to the Common Prayer Books, "That no holiness or worthiness was annexed to the garments of the priests; and that while the excessive multitude of ceremonies used in times of Popery was laid aside, some were received for a decent order in the church for which they were first devised, and because they pertained to edification, whereunto all things done in the church ought to be referred." These answers did not remove the objections of the Puritans. The controversy was agitated with much violence during a great part of the seventeenth century. It was the subject of numberless publications, of debates in parliament, and of judicial discussion. The Puritans, not content with argument and petition, employed various methods of inflaming the minds of the people, and made many attempts to obtain their object by faction and commotion. The church, irritated by opposition to her authority, was little disposed to condescend to weak consciences, in points which might have been yielded, and often employed

severity to bend those whom she could not convince. It is not my province to enter into a detail of these proceedings, or to compare the conduct of the different parties. I mention them only as furnishing the most interesting occasion, upon which this branch of the potestas diaraxtin was thoroughly canvassed. There probably were faults on both sides; and the reflection, which the whole history of that period suggests to us, is this, that we have much reason to congratulate ourselves upon living in times, when a knowledge of the nature and the measure of church authority is conjoined with a respect for those principles of toleration and condescension, which, although most congenial to the spirit of the gospel, were, for many ages, little understood by the disciples of Christ. The application of these principles, and the manner in which they may be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of church power, will be illustrated after we have considered the last branch of that power, which we distinguished by the name of potestas διακριτικη.

CHAPTER VI.

POTESTAS Διακριτική.

The potestas diangirin, that which respects discipline, or the exercise of judgment in inflicting and removing censures, is, like the other two branches, limited and regulated by the sovereign authority of the Lord Jesus, and the liberties of his disciples.

We found formerly that this branch of power belongs to the church. Even a voluntary association has an inherent right of removing those who are judged unworthy of remaining; and the church, that society constituted by Jesus Christ, into which it is the duty of his disciples to enter, is invested by its Divine Founder with the right of exercising, by its ministers, the office of admonishing, reproving, suspending, or excluding from the privileges of the society, according to the conduct of the members. In order, however, to perceive in what manner the exercise of the power implied in this office is regulated and limited by the sovereign authority of Christ, and the liberties of his disciples, it is necessary to recollect particularly the words in which the power is conveyed or expressed, and the claims which have been founded upon the interpretation of them.

When our Lord said to Peter, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," he seems to have intended to explain this figurative expression, by adding, in the words then addressed to Peter, but afterwards addressed to all the apostles, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." After his resurrection our Lord "breathed on the apostles, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." The apostle Paul, in the exercise of that authority thus given to the apostles, judged that the incestuous person at Corinth should be "delivered unto Satan ;"§ and he says of Hymeneus and Alexander, who "concerning faith had made shipwreck, I have delivered them unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme."||

The expressions used in these passages of Scripture occur in the earliest accounts of the discipline exercised by the Christian church; and the practice of the church in primitive times explains the sense in which these expressions were understood. When disciples of Christ, who had dishonoured his religion by committing any gross immoral