Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

such an one not even to eat," (unde ouviodieiv). Some attach the word (ovouaouevos, called) to the last clause of the verse; and they render it, "If any brother be named or reputed a fornicator," &c. This gives a very good sense to the passage. Here I conceive he lays down a standing law respecting the character of those who are to be excluded from the Lord's table, though they should bear the name of Christ. If we are forbidden to eat a common meal with persons of this description, a fortiori, we are not to admit them to the ordinance of the Supper. If, as has been shewn before, by the expression, "let us keep the feast," the Apostle refers to the holy communion, then it is most agreeable to the scope of the passage, to conclude that he alludes to it here. And the nature of things supposes it. Are we to preserve greater strictness of decorum in our private entertainments, than in the celebration of a divine institution? Yet there are some who would scruple to admit individuals of doubtful character to their family tables, from a regard to their own honour, who do not hesitate to hold fellowship with them at the table of the Lord! Is not this to act the part of the ancient Jews, who profaned the name of God, and said the table of the Lord is polluted, and the fruit thereof, even his meat is contemptible?" (Mal. i. 12). No superiority of rank-no dignity of office-no extent of knowledge, can excuse a christian church for holding communion with those who are known to live in the indulgence of these vices, in the face of this express prohibition of an inspired Apostle. The rule of Scripture is observed in many reformed churches, so far as respects fornication; but why is the reviler overlooked, which must include all profane swearers? why is the drunkard—why is the rapacious oppressor of the poor, passed over in silence? Some may ask, how are we to know such persons? What is the true nature of covetousness? It is easy to start objections; but such questions plainly impeach the wisdom and practicability of the rules here laid down. Persons of this description bring great dishonour on the christian name, and present a most injurious representation of the religion of Christ to heathens and infidels. By associating with them as christian brethren, we lead others to think that we are disposed to wink at their vices, because they belong to the same communion; the very reason that should call for faithful dealing. It exposes others to the contagion of their example, and serves to harden them in their

[ocr errors]

evil courses; whereas the execution of the laws of Christ against such offenders, might be the means of reclaiming them from the paths of vice; and, at all events, it would discover to them their true character, and would free the church from all imputation of conniving at their sins.

It is evident that the Apostle does not require the same degree of caution in our intercourse with heathens, as with those who profess to belong to christian churches" who are called brethren." There is now a third class, namely, that of nominal christians, of whom the greater part of society in this country is composed. How are we to act towards them? If we refuse to hold intercourse with them, we must still go out of the world. But this intercourse must be of a civil kind; they are called brethren, i. e. christians; the very description of persons referred to in the text, and therefore we are bound not to associate with them in the observance of christian ordinances. Of course, the Apostle does not mean that we are to use no means to reclaim them from wickedness, or to refuse the common offices of humanity; we are "not to count them as enemies, but to admonish them as brethren;" but we must avoid all unnecessary familiarity with them. In addition to the enumeration here given, the Apostle commands Timothy to turn away from such who had only "a form of godliness," and who were "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God." (2 Epist. iii. 5.)

It is said by some that we must at least avoid private intercourse with such individuals, in the present decayed state of public discipline; but the neglect of discipline is the very evil to be corrected. Others observe, that we are not to form alliances with them by marriage; but who has a right to set aside the execution of the laws of Christ respecting the discipline of his church? Towards such persons we cannot exercise the duties of brotherly love.

That the Apostle did not allude, in his former letter, to the men of the world, is further evident from the fact, that they were not in communion with any christian church, and therefore were not cognizable by its laws. 12" For what (right) have I to judge them that are without?" Persons in this situation cannot be called to account by the churches of Christ, which go out of their proper sphere when they attempt to bring the whole mass of mankind under subjection to the spiritual laws of Christ's kingdom.

It is only those who make a profession of the Gospel, or who are within the visible church, that we are required to judge by their fruits, in obedience to the command of Christ. But those profane persons, who, in countries professing Christianity, glory in being of no religion, shall not, on that account, sin with impunity, or escape the judgment of God. Even those who live in heathen lands, and have not the light of revelation, shall be called to account for those actions which they have committed against the voice of reason and conscience, as the Apostle elsewhere observes, (Rom. ii. 12. “ them that are without, God judgeth." But it is the duty of christian churches to examine the character of their own members; this is a right which every individual member possesses, and of which he cannot lawfully be deprived. "Do not ye judge those that are within ?" they are all equally interested to preserve the purity of the church, and to maintain the honour of the christian vocation. He again enjoins them therefore, to "put away from among themselves the wicked person," (13.)

REFLECTIONS.

1. In addition to the observations formerly made, it appears evident from this chapter that the power of excommunication is vested, not in the pastors or elders of the churches, to the exclusion of the people, but in the whole community of believers. Even the Apostle would not exclude the incestuous person, by his own authority, but directed the church to do it. It would also appear from other passages, that the primitive churches had the power of admitting new members and of re-admitting penitent offenders. Indeed the one right implies the other. Hence in writing to the Romans he says, "Receive him who is weak in the faith;" (chap. xiv. 1.) "receive ye one another to the glory of God." (chap. xv. 7). "I commend to you Phoebe our sister, that ye receive her in the Lord as becometh saints," &c. In the same manner the sentence pronounced on the incestuous person, is called a "punishment inflicted by many." That this right was possessed by the first churches, is known to all who are conversant in christian antiquities; and it was lost only by the decay of zeal and the progress of corruption. From this it would appear that these societies were voluntary associations, which had power to receive or exclude their own members, without being accountable

to any foreign tribunal. On this footing the congregational churches are now placed. It may be useful to collect the opinions of respectable writers of various denominations on this point, as I conceive it to be one of great importance, and intimately connected with the interests of practical christianity.

The sentiments of Dr M'Knight have been already quoted. Dr Mosheim says, "One of the circumstances which contributed chiefly to preserve at least an external appearance of sanctity in the christian church, was the right of excluding from thence, and from all participation of the sacred rites and ordinances of the Gospel, such as had been guilty of enormous transgressions, and to whom repeated exhortations to repentance and amendment had been administered in vain. This right was vested in the church from the earliest period of its existence, by the Apostles themselves, and was exercised by each christian assembly upon its respective members. The rulers or doctors denounced the persons whom they thought unworthy of the privileges of church communion; and the people, freely approving or rejecting their judgment, pronounced the decisive sentence. It was not, however, irrevocable; for such as gave undoubted signs of their sincere repentance, and declared their solemn resolution of future reformation, were readmitted into the church, however enormous their crimes had been; but in case of a relapse, their second exclusion became absolutely irreversible." (cent. 1. part 2. c. 3. sect. 10.)

Dr Campbell observes, "There were some things, however, which from the beginning were conducted in common by the pastors, the deacons, and the whole congregation. This appears particularly and most properly to have been the case in all matters of scandal and offence. In regard to these, it is the community that in strictness of speech is offended. The very word scandal or stumbling-block implies this. It is the community therefore that ought to be satisfied. It is to them our Lord appears (Matt. xviii. 15, &c.) to have committed the charge of admonishing delinquents, and even of excommunicating obstinate offenders. But I shall have occasion to examine the import of that passage in the Gospel afterwards. Only, it may be further observed, in confirmation of what has been now advanced, that the earliest practice of the church was conformable to the interpretation now given. Clement calls church censures, τа #goσтασσμ

sva ‘umo rov manbous) the things commanded by the multitude, that is, the congregation." (Eccles. Hist. Lect. 6).

Dr Owen, after stating that it belongs to the office bearers of the church authoritatively to pronounce the sentence of excommunication, and to judge of the proper cases which call for this act, remarks, "Howbeit it cannot be denied but that the interest, yea, the power of the whole church in the fraternity of it, is greatly to be considered herein. For indeed wherever the Apostle treats of it, he doth not any where recommend it unto the officers of the church in a peculiar manner, but unto the whole church, and the brethren therein. This is evident in the places before quoted. Wherefore the whole church is concerned herein, both in point of duty, interest, and power: 1. In point of duty; for by virtue of the mutual watch of all the members of the church over each other, and of the care incumbent on every one of them for the good, the honour, the reputation, and edification of the whole, it is their duty, jointly and severally, to endeavour the purging out from among them of every thing that is contrary unto those ends. And they who are not concerned in these things, are dead and useless members of the church. 2. In interest they have also a concernment therein. They are to look that no "root of bitterness spring up amongst them, lest themselves are at length defiled thereby." It is usually said, that the good are not defiled by holding communion with them that are wicked, in a participation of holy ordinances. And there is some truth in what is said with reference unto wicked undiscovered hypocrites; or such as are not scandalously flagitious; but to promote this persuasion, so as to beget an opinion in church members, that they are no way concerned in the scandalous sins and lives of those with whom they walk in all duties of spiritual communion, openly avowing themselves members of the same body with them, is a diabolical engine invented to countenance churches in horrible security unto their ruin. But yet, besides that defilement which may be contracted in a joint participation of the same ordinances with such persons, there are other ways almost innumerable, whereby their example, if passed by without animadversion, may be pernicious unto their faith, love, and obedience. Wherefore, they are obliged in point of spiritual interest, as they take care of their own souls, to concur in the ejection out of the church, of obstinate offenders.

3. In

« FöregåendeFortsätt »