confidered as the fame with the fovereign's? Indeed the language of. St. Paul, through the whole of this epiftle, is fo very high, that we cannot enough wonder at its being supposed to give the smalleft countenance to the power of the people in paffing the fentence of excommunication, or in re-admitting the penitent." For to this end alfo did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye, be sbedient in all things." "I told you before, and foretel you as if I were prefent, the second time, and being abfent now I write to them which heretofore have finned, and to all other, that if I come again, I will not pare." "I write these things being abfent, but being prefent I fhould use fharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to deftruction." Senfible, perhaps, that thefe expreffions lend little fupport to the independent fcheme, Dr. Campbell tranflates the words y Exilia avin ή υπο των πλειόνων, "the cenfure which was inflicted by the community," instead of "this punishment, which was inflicted of many;" thus infinuating, that the incestuous perfon was excommunicated by a vote of the congregation. But this is directly contrary to fact; for St. Paul, in his fift epiftle which was fent by TIMOTHY to the church at Corinth, fpeaking of the fame delinquent, fays, "I verily, as abfent in body, but prefent in fpirit, have judged already, (xengina) as though I were prefent, concerning him that hath fo done this deed; in the name of our Lord Jefus Chrift, when ye are gathered together, and my fpirit, with the power of our Lord Jefus Chrift, to deliver fuch a one to Satan,for the destruction of the flesh," &c. He then enjoins them to purge out from among them the excommunicated perfon, not to keep company with him, and with fuch a one, no not eat. This treatment would of courfe bring him into public difgrace; but difgrace which is the literal tranflation of ana, was a part of the punishment, which the community only could inflict, though it was obferved by the apofle. Whatever confidence St. Paul might have in the difcretion and integrity of the elders of the church of Corinth, and we believe it would have been difficult for Dr. Campbell to prove that it was to any other than the elders, he faid, "to whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive alfo," he could hardly have fuch confidence in the congregation at large, as to conftitute a fet of men judges of the moral conduct of each other, who had got drunk together in the house of God at the very * Of this we think there is no room for doubt. Honour it cannot poffibly mean in this place; and yet it is certainly derived from Taw, as that word is ultimately either from tw, or from the Hebrew words tame, which fignifies to defile or pollute, or to become wile or contemptible. If this Hebrew word be the radix, our tranflation, is unquestionably juft; and though, refpecially in the middle voice, frequently fignifies I I punish, the punishment implied muft have a reference to Honour. See ft. Epift. Chap. 11th. ver. zift. celebration celebration of the Lord's fupper! Indeed the majority of much foberer congregations than that of Corinth, muft then have had their heads fo full of heathen notions as to render them altogether unfit to adminifter the difcipline of the church; and even now in this enlightened nation, it is impoffible to fuppofe that there are not many parifhes in which the majority of the people know fo very little of the peculiar doctrines of the goipel, and of the principles of Chriftian morality, that no man of common fenfe can deem them adequate judges of each other's faith, or each other's practice. But, fays the ingenious lecturer, every congregation at large is entrusted with the administration of difcipline by the divine founder of the church; and therefore all reafonings about their fitness for the office is useless. True; all reafonings about the fitnefs of any clafs of men for an office to which they are appointed by our bleffed Lord, are worse than ufelefs they are impious; but where is the evidence of this appointment? The paliage, quoted as fuch by Dr. Campbell, could not lead a converted Jew to fuppofe, that when he should tell the church that his brother had offended him, the offender was to be judged by the whole congregation; for that paffage points out a method of difcipline ftrikingly fimilar to that which was obferved in the fynagogue, where every thing relating to the morals of the people, the admiffion of profelytes, and the expulfion of offenders, was determined, not by the congregation, but by the aguiovvaywyo quippe quibus_incubuit fumma rerum cura et fumma poteftes, fays Dr. Lightfoot. We quote this author with peculiar fatisfaction, because his earning is univerfally acknowledged, whilft he cannot be accused, as we shall probably be of pleading the caufe of Priestly domination. Yet, in his Hore Hebraice in Evangelium Matthæi, et in Epift. prim. ad Corinthios, he gives fo full a view of the process of Jewith excommunication, and fo completely establishes the abfolute authority of the rulers of the fynagogue, efpecially of the Angelus Ecclefiæ or Epifcopus Congregationis, that no one, we will venture to fay, can read these two tracts impartially, without being convinced, that it could not poffibly enter into the heads of the difciples, that our Saviour, by referring the offences of Chriftians to the church, meant to fubject them to the jurifdiction of the multitude. We have, however, ftronger evidence, if poffible, even than this, that fuch could not be his intention; for, when he inftituted the sacrament of baptifm, which Dr. Campbell acknowledges to be the rite of regular admiffion into the church, he did not commit the adminiftration of it to the difciples at large, but to a felect number, whom he fent with authority fimilar to that with which he had himself been sent by his father. But a fociety into which members could be admitted only by one order of men, and from which offenders could be expelled only by the votes of the majority, fo far from being "a body fitly joined together," as St. Paul defcribes the Chriftian church, would be fuch a Babel of confufion as must quickly be dif folved folved by the unavoidable jarring of its own members. When our bleffed Lord therefore directs offenders to be punished by the church, he must be understood to mean, by the fentence of the governors of the church; just as when we fay, that a criminal has fuffered civil punifhment, we always mean by the sentence of the proper magistrate, and not by that of the community at large. Though we differ thus widely from the learned principal respecting the government of the primitive church, we heartily agree with him, that the fubjects over which fhe had an inherent jurifdiction were quite different from queftions merely regarding right or property. "The one is more analogous to a criminal, the other, to a civil procefs. Two perfons may differ in regard to the title to a particular fubject, each claiming it as his, though neither accufe the other of injurious or unchriftian treatment." The claim of right can be determined only by the law of the land or by voluntary arbitration; an accufation of unchriftian conduct falls under the inherent jurifdiction of the church. We agree with him likewife in believing, that the extenfive jurifdiction, which even in fecular affairs was conferred on the bifhops by Conftantine and other Chriftian emperors, contributed to corrupt the fimplicity of the original conftitution of the church, as well as of the manners of the clergy; but we think that he greatly aggravates the corruption proceeding from that fource, and we are certain that he contradicts all antiquity, not excepting the Scriptures of the New Teftament, when he fays that " Juftinian firft allotted to the epifcopal tribunal, the ecclefiaftical delinquencies of . clergymen !" Did Juftinian live before St. Cyprian? We know not what character to give of that part of the lecture, in which he says, that "the great engine of the magiftrate is terror; of the paftor love; and that the paftor must forbear threatening." St. Paul threatened, and exhorted Timothy to reprove. Were not St. Paul and Timothy paftors? But we pafs over these things, and haften to notice the calumnies, which, in this lecture, we meet with against the church of England. Previous to thefe, the learned author gives a very favourable view of the difcipline of his own church, which we fhall not controvert, both because we are in a great meafure ftrangers to that difcipline, and because it would be hard not to allow a Scotch profeffor of divinity to fay, unchallenged, what can be faid in behalf of a church, of which he has hitherto laboured to prove that the government and difcipline bear hardly any refemblance to the government and difcipline of the original church of Chrift. But Dr. Campbell might have praifed his own church, without belying the Church of England. That he has belied her is most evident; for he has more than infinuated (PP. 72, 73) that the test was contrived to "compel men by the coarse implements of human authority and worldly fanctions," to embrace her communion; whereas it is univerfally known, that the teft was forced upon Charles II, chiefly by the diffenting intereft, not to compel men to unite themselves to the Church of England, but to exclude Papifts from from civil offices. When our author fays, that "ecclefiaftical cenfures in England have now no regard, agreeably to their original deftination, to purity and manners," he directly contradicts the rubric prefixed to the communion in the book of Common Prayer, a rubric which conftitutes part of the law of the land as well as of the conftitution of the church. If he meant, by this impertinent obfervation, only to infinuate, that ecclefiaftical difcipline is relaxed in England; we beg leave to afk his partizans, whether it be not likewife relaxed in Scotland; and whether it be as cuftomary now as formerly to exhibit fornicators on the fool of repentance? We have heard, but we do not vouch for its truth, that it is not uncommon, among the Scottish clergy, to refufe the facrament of baptifm to the children of parents whofe moral conduct has not been unexceptionable. That fuch an abfurd and impious practice is authorized by the church of Scotland, we have too great a regard for that church to fuppofe; but if it be connived at by her judicatories, to the extent that we have been led to believe, it ill became Dr. Campbell to revile the Church of England for her abuse of difcipline; for fuch an attempt by weak fallible men to vifit the fins of the fathers on the children is a greater corruption than any that he has mentioned as refulting from the test act. He fhould have taken the THORN out of his own eye, before he declaimed against the mote in his brother's eye. We have seen Dr. Campbell labouring to prove that the conftitution of the Chriftian Church was, by the appointment of the Divine founder, congregational and democratical. It was not, therefore, without fome degree of furprife, that we found him aflerting, in the beginning of his fourth lecture, that the queftion in regard to the original form of church government is comparatively of little importance; that this or that form is merely a circumftance; nay that any ecclefiaftical polity whatever " is a circumftantial no where either explicitly declared, or implicitly fuggefted in all the book of God!!" If this be fo, by what means came the learned author to discover that the congregational form of Church Government (fee our last Review) "was clearly pointed out to the firft Chriftians by Chrift himself." We moft cordially agree with him that "the effence of Chriftianity abftractedly confidered," or indeed any how confidered, "confifts in the fyftem of doctrines and duties revealed by our Lord Jefus Chrift" either immediately while he fojourned on earth, or through the medium of the holy fpirit after his afcenfion into Heaven;" and that the essence of the Chriftian character consists in the belief of the one, and the obedience of the other." But in the fyftem of duties, revealed through the medium of the holy fpirit to the apoftle, "obedience to those who have a right to rule over us and to watch for our fouls," is exprefsly mentioned; and therefore fince it is impoffible to conceive how fuch rights as this can be poffeffed by any man or order of men, who have not derived them from the fupreme bishop of fouls, it muft furely be a matter of high importance to ascertain; if we can, what what was the original form of Church Government, because to that government alone can fuch obedience be due ? The doctor indeed allows, "that a certain external model of government must have been originally adopted for the more effectual prefervation of the evangelical inftitution in its native purity, and for the careful tranfmiffion of it to after ages." He allows likewife "that a prefumptuous encroachment on what is evidently fo inftituted, is justly reprehenfible in those who are properly chargeable with fuch encroachment;" but he contends that the reprehenfion can affect those only who are confcious of the guilt; "for the fault of another, says he, will never fruftrate to me the divine promife given by the Messiah, the great interpreter of the father, the faithful and true witnefs to all indifcriminately, without any limitation, that he who receiveth his teftimony hath everlasting life." There is a fenfe in which this reafoning is unafwerable, and in that fenfe we are willing to receive it; but we muft have leave to add, that among thofe, whom the reprehenfion will most certainly affect, are all, who, having difcovered, that the church, of which they are members, has, in the effentials of her conftitution, deviated from the original model, yet continue in her communion, without labouring to bring her back to that ftandard of purity. Were the writer of this article as much convinced, as Dr. Campbell feems to have been, that the original conftitution of the Church was democratical and congregational, he could not, without guilt, equal to that of those who first encroached on the rights of the people, continue for one day a member of either of our national establishments. Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partaker of her fins," is as much addreffed to all, who are in fuch circumstances, as it was to those whom the Apocalypt called immediately out of Babylon. This, we think, can be denied by no man, who admits with our author, that a certain external model of government must have been originally adopted for the careful tranfmiffion of the evangelical inftitution to after ages; for that inftitution, as we all know, is to be tranfmitted to the end of the world, and therefore the model of government adapted for that purpose could not have been intended to be of shorter duration. To admit the Doctor's premises and refuse our conclufion would be an abfurdity equal to that of him, who, being entrusted by an abfent Lord with the care of a vineyard, round which it had been found neceffary to erect a fence fix feet high, fhould yet let the fence remain at the height of two feet, because it had been reduced to that level, not by himself, but by his great-grandfather when holding the office which he now fills. But, fays our ingenious lecturer, the original conftitution of the church cannot be ascertained without great learning; and "that fyftem must convey a ftrange idea of revelation, which exhibits it, as, in refpect of the truths neceffary to be known by all, perfectly mute to the unlearned, and of fervice only to linguifts, critics, and antiquaries." And are not the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures equally mute |