point of power; for the execution of this sentence is committed unto, and rests in, the body of the church. According as they concur or practise, so it is put in execution or suspended; for it is they who must withdraw communion from them, or the sentence is of no use or validity: this punishment must be inflicted by the many, who also are to restore him who is so rebuked. Wherefore excommunication, without the consent of the church, is a mere nullity. (True Nature of a Gospel Ch. p. 350. edit. 1801.)

Dr Watts observes, "It is evident to common reason, when such a voluntary religious society is instituted, the right of receiving or casting out members, or restoring them upon repentance, lies originally in the society itself; because the society itself is formed, and subsists, by the mutual compact of its own members. And whatever qualifications are required of persons, in order to become members of this body, it is the society itself that has an original right to judge whether the persons have these qualifications or not. It was upon the mutual acknowledgement of such qualifications, expressed or implied, that this society was first founded; and as a voluntary society, it must be maintained on the same foot, otherwise new members will be likely to be admitted and imposed upon them, to the great dislike and injury of the society. Indeed they may depute several particular persons of their number, whom they suppose better skilled therein, as elder and wiser, to act for the whole society, and particularly to examine into the qualifications of persons, and the merits of the cause, when members are to be received, or to be cast out; but they should never renounce their own original right." (Foundation of a Christian Ch. 1747.)

On the whole, a society of pious and intelligent persons in the present day, seems as capable of the exercise of this right as were the primitive christians. For christians of modern times, if we except the possession of miraculous gifts, are surely distinguished by the same characteristic features as were those of the first age. It seems surprising that, while such exertions are made, to restore to the people the right of choosing their own pastors, nothing is comparatively done to restore to the churches the right of choosing their own members.

2. The rules laid down in this chapter enable us to answer an objection which has frequently been raised against the conduct

of those who withdraw from Reformed churches, on account of their neglect of discipline. It is asked, Why leave a church whose standards are sound? Now, we are commanded, not only to shew our disapprobation of false doctrine, (2 John 10.) but to put away every wicked person. In the words of the learned Joseph Caryl, in his preface to the above work of Dr Owen, "it is not articles of faith, or profession of them in particular individual persons, that make an organised visible church." "It is men and women, not doctrine, that are the matter of a church, and these professing the faith, and practising holiness." (Pref. to the work before mentioned.)

3. As to the question, whether admonition and rebuke should be publicly administered, there can be no doubt that those who sin are to be reproved before all. But this I apprehend refers to the communicants or brethren of the church, not to the general congregation. To administer church censures in the presence of the thoughtless multitude, is to wound unnecessarily the feelings of the offender, and comes nearer to the nature of a civil penalty, than of a spiritual admonition. This is the true way to bring such censures into disrepute; and accordingly, under this constitution, they are either wholly omitted, or commuted for a pecuniary fine. As to the opinion, that the discipline of the church is one means of instructing the world, and therefore that all discussions of the offences of members should be conducted in presence of the congregation at large, it proceeds on a very superficial view of human nature; and wherever it has been put in practice, has cast a stumbling-block in the way of the ungodly. The primitive churches discussed every case of discipline only in presence of their own members.

CHRISTIANS ARE FORBIDDEN TO GO TO LAW WITH EACH OTHER.

THE Apostle now proceeds to point out another serious abuse which prevailed in the church of Corinth, namely, the practice of carrying their disputes about secular things before the heathen magistrates. 1. "Dare any of you, having an affair (çay) against another, go to law (xg, be judged) before the unrighteous (adıxwv), and not before the saints ?" He expresses himself in a very abrupt manner, like a person who listens to a report of another which fills him with astonishment; as if he had said, "What is this I hear of you? Is it possible that you can act in a way so unbecoming your christian character, and so contrary to the duties you owe to each other?” As formerly noticed, many of the Corinthian converts appear to have been in prosperous circumstances, and possessed of a vindictive spirit. These circumstances would naturally give rise to litigation; and in frequenting the courts of law, a vast advantage would of course be obtained by the rich over their poorer brethren. The expences attending legal proceedings, in all civilized countries, whatever favourable regulations may be made in behalf of the poor, render lawsuits extremely vexatious to the lower classes of society, and almost exclude them from the benefit of having their causes legally tried. Besides, the unavoidable delay connected with judicial forms, is often the occasion of much loss and inconvenience, even where redress is ultimately obtained; and it is well known that wealthy suitors frequently avail themselves of the intricacies of law, to prolong the dependance of their civil actions. It may be also observed, that even in countries the most refined, and where the laws of mutual intercourse are greatly ameliorated by the indirect influence of Christianity, the agitation of differences between two

parties before a judicial court, necessarily produces an irritation of feeling very unfavourable to the exercise of that mutual affection which ought to subsist among the disciples of Christ. In the case before us, it is further to be recollected, that the Roman magistrates, as idolatrous heathens, were naturally hostile to Christianity, and of course were apt to allow their minds to be biassed against the professors of the new religion. Having premised these things, it is necessary to explain the Apostle's meaning, consistently with the general principles of equity, and with other parts of the word of God. Observe, then, that he does not condemn the institutions of civil magistracy. This is evident from the rules he lays down Rom. xiii. 1-3. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers," &c. Nor does he find fault with the civil law of the Romans, which was generally founded on equity, and remains a lasting monument of the wisdom of that people. Nor does he forbid christians to avail themselves of their civil rights as citizens; for he took the protection of the laws himself on different occasions, Acts xxv. 10.; xxii. 25; neither does he censure the whole body of heathen magistrates as unjust. The word (adıxos) does not refer so much to their want of moral integrity, as to their ignorance of true religion. Many of them were men of integrity and honour, though it must be allowed that they frequently degraded the dignity of their office by corruption, and oppressed the people by their illegal exactions. Nor does he forbid christians to secure their property or their reputation against the wanton attacks and unjust aggressions of worldly men, by an appeal to the laws of their country. This would, in a great measure, derange the frame of civil society. But, as his language plainly implies, be disapproves of christians going to law with their brethren, especially before the heathen judges. Such a practice was exceedingly unbecoming the mild spirit of the Gospel. It would necessarily give the judges an unfavourable impression of their character, and of course increase their prejudice against the true religion. It implied a distrust in the fidelity and honour of their fellow christians, as if greater impartiality and justice could be found in idolaters than in their own brethren. In a word, members of the same church are forbidden to go to law with each other; and on all occasions judicial proceedings should if possible be avoided, in matters of small moment, even with the men

We

of the world. It is much more agreeable to the spirit of Christianity, rather to suffer an injury than to resent it. (Matt. v. 39, 40.) Some object, that the Apostle only means to condemn the practice of frequenting the heathen courts of judicature, and to recommend that christians should appoint judges from among themselves; or in other words, establish tribunals of their own; and they tell us that this they might easily have done under the tolerant government of the Romans, who allowed the Jews to hold their own courts of justice: But what is this but to sanction litigation under another form? Allowing the judges to profess the christian faith, would this alter the obligation of brotherly love, or prevent the unhappy consequences above alluded to? e see that, even under all the advantages of British justice, the evils complained of still operate to a lamentable extent, namely, expense, delay, and irritation of feeling. These are inseparable from the complicated forms of judicial proceedings; and we hesitate not to say, that the same principles that rendered it improper for christians to sue each other before the Roman tribunals, render it equally inconsistent with their profession to bring each other before the courts of justice in countries where the true religion is professed. What then does the Apostle recommend? evidently the practice of arbitration. This, in every respect, is preferable to a suit at law. When differences unhappily arise between members of christian churches, they must refer their cause to the judgment of one or two of their brethren mutually chosen. These, if men of integrity, though possessed even of inferior gifts, are generally sufficiently well qualified to judge of matters of fact, and even to point out the rule of equity. Hence, in our own law, the origin of trial by jury. Now, in every church, persons of good sense and unimpeachable honour are to be found; and they will naturally feel a desire to see justice done, from a regard to their own character-from the interesting relation in which they stand to the parties-and from a wish to preserve the peace of the church. All unnecessary expense and delay will thus be avoided; and instead of allowing the passions of the disputants to become inflamed, they will act as peace-makers be'tween them. It is one proof of the sad degeneracy of modern churches, that the members are allowed to go to law with each other, without being called to account for their obvious disregard of the christian rule.