is out of the present question. Nature itself, as well as the word of God, teaches, that they should not exercise authority in the church. Natural laws are para. mount to positive. When a positive institution is given to a whole community, it must be kept within the limits naturally set to it, and permanently established by God; but to all within these limits, it must extend. The male members of the church, as well as the pastors, are within these limits; and according to the natural, and irrepealable law of God, they are justly consid

ered as the active members of the church, as it respects the exer. cise of authority. When Christ gives positive directions to the whole church, those only can be excepted, whom a paramount law has incapacitated, in respect to such directions.

It is remarked by some of the most critical writers on the subject, that there are in the New Testament but two original senses of the word, church; and that, when applied to believers, it denotes either a single congregation of Christians; or the whole christian community. "The church in the house of Nymphas may have been as really a congregation, as the church in the city of Ephesus. In fact there seems to be no ground in the Scriptures for the supposition, that the word church sometimes denotes a couneil of pastors.

It is said that "Christ's minis. try was under the law. If he had respect to the then existing state of the church, it was that of Moses, which had elders in every city." The author prob. ably refers to the churcaes of the

synagogues and in John ix.34, we have an instance of an excommunication from one of them. But whoever shall attentively read that chapter, from the 18th to the 34th verse, will feel almost if not altogether, persuaded, that the Jews, the worshippers in the synagogue, 66 cast him out." Hence, they were probably considered by Christ as the church the court of discipline. With this supposition, every sentence of Paul on the subject perfectly corresponds.

warns.

He designates the christian community by the synonymous terms, church, them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints. The same community he also calls brethren, and his beloved sons, whom he "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 1 Cor. v.13. Does the word, yourselves, mean the church collectively? Does it mean the brethren including their pastor, or pastors? If it do; and if this be made clearly to appear; then the question under discussion will come to an issue in favor of my statement. To what class of Christians then does the word yourselves, refer? The chapter begins thus "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you." Yous in this verse, and yourselves, in the 13th, denote the same class of Christians. There is an incestu. ous man among you; therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. And as in these two verses; so in every verse in this, and in the following chapter, the apostle evidently addresses the same body of professors. Was it then among the pastors, as a separate, dis

tinct body; if such a plurality existed, that this wicked person was found? Was it from the fellowship of the pastors, only, that he was to be excommunicat. ed? Was it to the pastors, only, the apostle had written "not to company with fornicators?" Was it to the pastors he said, "Is it so that there is not a wise man among you? Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, be. cause ye go to law one with another:-brother goeth to law with brother." In these, and in all the instances in immediate connexion with the 13th verse, it appears decisively evident, that the apostle addresses, not the pastors exclusively, but the brethren, the whole church: and it has been already shown, that directions unequivocally given to a whole community, cannot be justly considered as designed for a part only. Hence the word, yourselves, in the 13th verse, denotes the whole church, or community of brethren. The term church, then, in the 18th of Matt. as understood and explained by Paul, means the pas tor, and brethren together, empowered to hear, judge, and de. cide, in all cases of discipline, in regard to their own members.

This conclusion seems to be fairly drawn from premises, which result from a natural construction of the text in its pure and intimate connexions. The argument however, gains strength, if it be considered, that from the beginning of this epistle to the end of the sixth chapter, the apostle keeps up his address to the church, without descending to particular class es; that the four first chapters were designed as an introduction

to the rest of the epistle on the subject of discipline, and of rectifying various disorders ; and that this subject, with great pru. dence, and much address, is introduced, not to a council of pastors, but to the community of brethren. Can this total si. lence on a council, or court, distinct from the church, be ac. counted for, if such a court ex. isted at Corinth? And, especially, how can it be accounted for in an epistle designed to awake the spirit of discipline, and to give directions for settling difficulties in the church?

Conclusive as this argument may already be considered, it will acquire augmented force, if the premises be extended to the 2d and 7th chapters of 2 Cor. in which the apostle considers the happy effects of his first epistle, in regard both to the of. fender, and to the church. He doubtless addresses the church, and not a part of it, as having acted in the case. "I wrote this same epistle, he says, having confidence in you all; that my joy is the joy of you all. Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, I did it not for his cause, that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that had suffered wrong; but that our care for you, in the sight of God, might appear unto you." Such pastoral ad. dresses were made to the flock. They are different from those expressly made to Timothy, and Titus. If a council of pastors were the principal department of power in the church; why has not the apostle made some distinct, and honorable mention of it, in his congratulatory addresses?

In a reply on this subject last

all classes from the lowest to the highest; and to give the clearest and most convincing evidence, that he was the Messiah, the hope of Israel, and the expectation of ages. By these astonishing works his adversaries were greatly alarmed, lest all men should believe on him ;" and deeming it necessary that something decisive should be done, the pharisees and sadducees, the great rival sects of the nation, suspending for a while their mutual animosities, combined their influence in a conspiracy against him; for the obvious purpose of counteracting the impression of his mir. acles, and of bringing him and his doctrine into discredit with the people. They came and demanded of him " a sign from heaven;" plainly insinuating that, without such a sign, all his miracles were of no avail to authenticate his claims, as the Messiah. Their impious demand however, he effectually repelled; their insidious attempts against him, he made to recoil upon their own heads; and leaving them defeated and confounded, he retired with his disciples into the territories of Cesarea Philippi. Such was the occasion.

The design of this discourse was not less important, than the occasion was interesting. The design evidently was to bring his disciples to an explicit confession of their faith in him; to confirm their confession in opposition to all the erroneous and diverse opinions of others respecting him; and, through them, to declare to all nations and ages the true foundation of his church, and the appointed way of access to its peculiar

privileges and its everlasting blessings.

As the occasion of this dis. course was uncommonly interesting, and the design of it equal. ly important; so the use which has been made of it has been of infinite consequence. To this distinguished passage, the faithful of all ages have recurred, as exhibiting the essential characteristics of the true church of God, and the sure and immovable foundation, on which all its interests and hopes are placed; and to this, too, have the advocates of Rome, with great confidence recurred, as the basis of the whole enormous fabric of the papal hierarchy. Let us, then, consider the passage with serious attention.

When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am 2 Cesarea Philippi was in the northern extremity of the land of Israel, on the confines of Syria, In this remote place, Jesus, it would appear, was not thronged, as usual, with the mul titude. Luke indeed says, that "he was alone, praying, and his disciples with him." After the combined attack, then, of the pharisees and sadducees, he retired to this place privately, he might have opportunity with his disciples for prayer and particular discourse. Accordingly after praying with them he entered upon the subject, to which he intended to engage their attention.

that

"Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?" In this question, he appears to have referred to the people at large for the

pharisees and sadducees had recently made a public declaration of their sentiments respecting him; so far at least as clearly to imply that they held him to be an impostor and a deceiver of the people. But as he had just been exhibiting his credentials in the most striking and impressive light, the attention of the people generally must have been called to his character and claims, and much conversation, beyond doubt, had been held respecting him. He would, therefore, know from his disciples what the opinions of the people were; not for his own sake indeed, or for his own information; but for their sakes, and for the sake of all, of every nation and age, to whom the word of the gospel was to be sent.

"And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. These, it is observable, were the opinions, not of the pharisees and sadducees, who regarded him as an impostor, but of the people who thought favorable of him. Their opinions of him were respectful indeed; but they were erroneous. Though they regarded him as a true prophet and messenger of God; yet they did not acknowledge him in his true character as the Messiah. Those, who held that he was John the Baptist risen from the dead, appear to have been very much of the same opinion with Herod the tetrarch, and had probably imbibed the notion of the pharisees, that a good man might easily return to life; or rather perhaps, had embraced the more general doctrine of the metempsychosis, or transmigration of the soul;

a doctrine, according to which the souls of men generally, and especially of good men after death, are united to other bodies and are allowed to act a new part on the great theatre of life. This doctrine was prevalent in Judea; and upon the ground of this it was, that on a memorable occasion, the question was put to our Lord respecting the blind man : "Who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?" Agreeably to this doctrine therefore the people imagined, some, that the soul of John the Baptist, others, that the soul of Elijah, and others still, that the soul of Jeremiah, or some one of the ancient prophets, was united to another body, and appeared and acted in the person of Jesus.

John the Baptist was general. ly regarded by the Jews as a prophet; Elijah they expected would appear in the world to prepare the way for the Messiah, and anoint him into office; and Jeremiah they held as head, in a sense, of the whole order of the prophets, because God had said to him, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet to the nations." One, or another, therefore, of these distinguished prophets, the people seem to have supposed Jesus must have been. Their opinions of him, it may be repeated, were respectful but erroneous. They acknowledged him not as the Messiah himself, promised to their fathers, and long expected by their nation.

Alas! they

had formed their expectations of the Messiah upon an earthly model; they were looking for