highest and most solemn character? even to cut off, and to put away from among them, their own members.

See also, 2 Cor. 2: 6-11, where Paul gives intimations to the church respecting their duty to the incestuous person, after his repentance for his sin: "Sufficient," says he, "to such a man is this punishment, WHICH WAS INFLICTED OF MANY," [that is, doubtless, by a vote of the majority of the church] "so that ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him. * * * * Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him." But how? Evidently by restoring him to their favor and communion. The apostle does not here speak as one having alone the key of the Corinthian church; but contrariwise; as one who recognized the power" of the many" (vпò τŵv пistórar, of the majority of the church) to act in the matter. He does not com

mand the church to restore the penitent; but he “beseeches" them: much less does he restore the excommunicated person by the authority vested in himself as a minister of the gospel of Christ.*

In view of these facts, the inquiry arises: If the church at Corinth were authorized to perform these most solemn and most important of all ecclesiastical acts, were they not empowered to transact all appropriate church business? And if Paul himself, "the chiefest of the apostles," did not presume to act for the church, but contented himself with directing them how to act for themselves-not in his name, nor by his authority, but in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by His authority— then, surely, no person has a right to control and dictate a church; but the power to act authoritatively must rest

* Calvin says: "It is to be marked, that Paul, though an apostle, yet did not excommunicate alone, after his own will, but did participate the matter with the church, that it might be done by common authority-communi auctoritate."

John Cotton takes substantially the same view of this case, in his "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven," pp. 87-90.

in the church alone, assembled together in the name, and by the authority of Jesus Christ.

If in these passages the keys of the church are not put into the hands of the church-if the power to discipline, and even to excommunicate (the most important of all church acts) is not committed to the associated brethren, called the church-there is no meaning in words.*

With what show of reason, then, can it be maintained, that the power of excommunication is here given to the apostles; and, "in a qualified sense, may apply to Christian teachers, in all ages;" especially, when it is admitted by the same critic, that "tell it to the church," (sinè tỷ éxxλŋoią) must mean to the particular congregation to which you both, respectively, belong? +

What unprejudiced reader of the Saviour's directions will think of denying, that the power to bind and loose, -to receive and to excommunicate-is here expressly given to the church, as such; that is, to the "particular congregation" of believers to which the trespasser and the complainant respectively belong; and, not to the apostles, as such, nor to Christian teachers alone?

The great Head of the Church knew that "offences must needs come." He knew, too, that a church could not long continue an organized and religious body, separate from the world, if destitute of power to "purge out" the leaven of impurity which would inevitably infuse itself into the mass. Knowing all this, can we believe that he has neglected to provide an effectual remedy? We cannot. This remedy is pointed out in the passages which have been quoted. Here we have an infallible guide, unto which if we take heed, we shall do well.

Zuinglius says: "If we look thoroughly into the words of Christ which are in Matt. xviii, we may find him only to be excommunicated, whom the common consent of that church in which the man dwelleth, hath shut out.”—Jacob's Attestation, p. 30. ↑ See Bloomfield's New Test. in loc.

Admitting the Congregational principle-that every company of believers, who have entered into covenant engagements for church purposes, is a complete church, and authorized to transact all business, independently of the authoritative control or direction of any person or body of men whatever-admitting this, the directions of the Saviour are easily understood and obeyed. But, denying this principle, how can we proceed in cases of trespass? Who, and what is "the church," to which we are ultimately to carry our cause; and whose decision is to be final? If the apostles alone were intended, in the direction "tell it to the church," then, there is no one now authorized to settle difficulties between church members; yea, church discipline is out of the question; every member may walk as seemeth right in his own eyes, with none to say, "why do ye so?" Who can believe that Christ has left his churches in such a condition?

But suppose it be said, that this disciplinary power is lodged with the teachers of the churches, as the successors of the apostles? Then I ask, What if a church be destitute of teachers, as some of our churches are for a succession of years? or what if the teachers themselves become corrupt? What then becomes of discipline?

To avoid this difficulty, the power to discipline offenders may be committed to a Church Session."* But is " a church session"-i. e. the pastor and ruling elders of a particular congregation-" the church" of which

* The Church Session consists of the Pastor or Pastors, and the Ruling Elders of a Presbyterian Congregation.-See Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, 18mo. p. 388. Phil. 1821. This body is constructively, the church, or the congregation. Dr. Campbell's remark upon such sort of churches is worth repeating: "The notion *** of a church representative, how commonly soever it has been received, is a mere usurper" * ** Lectures on Ecc. Hist. L. 10. p. 166.-Zuinglius says of a representative church-"ecclesia representiva:" "Of this, I find nothing in the holy Scriptures. Out of man's devices any may feign what they list. We rest in the holy Scriptures." * *—Jacob's Att. p. 101.

Christ speaks in Matt. xviii, and to which Paul refers in his directions to the Corinthians? If it be, why then, we ask, did Paul (1 Cor. v.) direct the Corinthian church" gathered together," to pass an act of excommunication upon the incestuous person? Why were not his instructions addressed to the officers of the church alone? Is it not as clear that the apostles directed “the church which was in Corinth”—that is, "them that were sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints" (1 Cor. 1: 2,-to perform this act of discipline, as it is, that his epistle was directed to the church as a body, and not to the officers merely? And if so, then have we not evidence from the Scriptures, that the power and right to exercise Christian discipline were anciently vested in the congregated church? and that neither the elders of the church, nor any representatives of the body, could act independently of the brethren who constituted the

church?

This is a principle of our system: that, so far as the management of its own affairs are concerned, every church is a little independent republic; invested by Christ with all needful authority to elect officers, to discipline offenders, to administer its own government, and to do all other things which are necessary to its individual welfare, and consistent with the general principles of the Gospel.

The principles which have now been discussed, may be regarded as the corner stones of the Congregational system. On these the whole edifice rests. Remove either of them, and the fair fabric of Congregationalism will be shattered. But the storms of centuries have beaten upon it in vain, and it is confidently believed, that nothing can move it, for it is "founded upon a rock."

PART II.

DOCTRINES OF CONGREGATIONALISM.

In the preceding pages we have considered what Congregationalists regard as the most essential characteristics of a Christian church. In respect to these, we have ever been of one mind. But, in relation to what are here called (for the sake of a distinctive term, and for want of a better) the Doctrines of Congregationalism, it is somewhat otherwise. These have, for the most part, been gradually developed and adopted by the denomination, in connection with the practical application of their fundamental principles. But, the doctrines which will now be enumerated, are believed to be in accordance with our essential principles, and to have the very general, if not universal assent of consistent and intelligent Congregationalists of the present day. Congregationalists maintain,

I. That there should be but two kinds of permanent church officers: ELDERS (sometimes called pastors, teachers, ministers, overseers, bishops,) and DEACONS.

*

In the maintenance of this doctrine, modern Congregationalists differ materially from Episcopalians and Presbyterians, and even, somewhat, from the fathers of their own denomination.

As it is manifest to every reader of the New Testament that there were, in the apostolic churches, several orders of religious teachers and helpers besides pastors and deacons; and, as we profess to copy after those

* See Upham's Ratio Discip. ch. 4.-Bacon's Chh. Manual, pp. 36-40, 1st ed.-Pond's Church, sec. 8.-Mitchell's Guide, p. 38, 2d ed.