well as fornication, as incurring church censures. Persons guilty of such crimes were to be publicly rebuked. It was not absolutely necessary that the guilty person should be advanced to a seat of peculiar eminence, though in most churches there was a seat for the purpose, and, perhaps, in most instances, it was occupied on such occasions; yet it was declared to be sufficient, if there were satisfactory evidences of repentance, that the persons should profess the same, and receive the rebuke, in the seat in which he ordinarily heard the word preached. Purd. p. 191.

Now, so far as the church was concerned in dealing with sinners on account of scandal, I can find nothing that authorizes the modern practice of accepting a fine in lieu of public rebuke. The doctrine of the church is founded on the words of the apostle, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear," (1 Tim. v. 20.) Neither the church of Scotland, nor the apostle, on whose authority they proceeded, thought of restricting this rule to one species of sin: and I believe as little did they think that a profession of repentance, on account of any sin, should be dispensed with for money.*

A popish indulgence releases the temporal punishment due to sin, and it is granted for money. A Papist now accuses the church of Scotland of doing the same, because for money persons are released from public censure, which is understood to be a temporal punishment for sin; and I am sorry that Papists should see any thing in Protestant churches, that bears the smallest resemblance to their own corruptions.

As I am afraid great mistakes prevail on this subject, among various denominations of Christians, I shall take the liberty of stating what I think may be gathered from the word of God, in relation to it. I am, of course, as liable to be mistaken as any body else, and I wish to speak with diffidence. The subject is important, and I shall not have written in vain, if I shall be the means of drawing to it the attention of enlightened Protestants.

I think the church of Christ has nothing to do with the punishment of any man whatever. I use the word punishment, in the sense of Dr. Johnson,-" Any infliction or pain imposed in vengeance of a crime:" and such at least is its meaning among Papists, in relation to indulgences. The reign of Christ in his church, is the reign of grace and mercy. He has, indeed, in his hand a rod of iron; but that is to rule in the midst of his enemies, and he will break them in pieces like a potter's vessel, (Ps. ii.) But his reign in the church possesses a character of benignity and loving-kindness. No such thing, as punishment, properly so called, can emanate from the throne of mercy.

Christ has appointed a government, or rule in his church, to be administered by his servants in his name. The character of this government must correspond with that of the reign of grace, for it is virtually the government of Christ himself by his word. Those who rule in the church according to this word, must exhibit the compassion and gentleness of Christ. While they maintain great firmness,

The general assembly, August, 1573, decreed that great or rich men, being guilty of crimes, should be censured even alike as poor men; and that no dispensation should be granted them for money, though ad pios usus. Petrics' Ch. Hist. part 3d.

and even boldness, in opposing the enemies of truth and godliness, not for their hurt or punishment, but for their good also, they must be particularly careful that they administer nothing of the nature of punishment to those whom they acknowledge as their Master's friends.

Through infirmity and temptation, Christians often fall into sin, and thereby dishonour the cause of truth which they maintain. If it be a sin which is followed by scandal, or by occasion of which true religion suffers reproach, Christ has ordained that the sinner should be told his fault faithfully and plainly. If it be known only to a few, these few are authorized to forgive him, if they see such evidences of repentance as make them believe that God has forgiven him. If the sin be known to the church or congregation, then the evidence of the sinner's repentance ought also to be known to the church, he ought to be admonished or reproved by the minister in their presence, and exhorted to beware, in future, lest he fall into sin, which is his own greatest enemy. If he does not profess sorrow for his sin,-if he gives no evidence of repentance after repeated admonition, and exhortation, and prayer on his behalf, the church has nothing farther to do but to put him away.

In this there is nothing of the nature of punishment. It is a process of kindness and brotherly love. It is a precept as old as the law of Moses, "Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy brother, and not suffer sin upon him." (Lev. xix. 17.) The psalmist speaks of such discipline as an excellent oil that would not hurt him. He calls it even a kindness done to him; and such it truly is to all who need it, and to whom it is affectionately administered. It is the ordinance of Christ, intended for the gracious purpose of showing his people the great evil of sin, and deterring them from the commission of it. Like every other divine ordinance, it is profitable for the purpose intended by it. How many have had occasion to thank God for such expressions of his kindness, and the kindness of his people to themselves, or to others of whose penitence and restoration they have been witnesses! That there is nothing of punishment in this, is decidedly the opinion of the church of Scotland, as her discipline is expounded by STUART OF PURDIVAN. "A public rebuke," says he, "ought to be so managed, that there be no ground given for constructing it a penance, punishment, or mark of reproach, but the minister is to carry therein, as one much affected and afflicted with the sin."-In short, the whole process, if conducted according to the word of God, and the mind of the church of Scotland as above declared, is an expression of the kindness of the Head of the church towards his people, in order to recover them from sin, and preserve them from falling into it. But to dispense with this, and make a man pay for the dispensation, is to injure him, not so much by the fine, as by depriving him of the merciful discipline which Christ appointed for his spiritual benefit.

If it be objected, that most persons would rather pay the fine than submit to the discipline and reproof, I answer, this indicates a bad state of mind in such persons. I should doubt that they had repented of their sin. I should be afraid that they did not really belong to the kingdom of Him, of whose gracious reign I have been speaking. It would then serve no good purpose to deal with them according to the laws of that kingdom, farther than to set before them plainly

and faithfully their guilt and danger; and if after all, they did not repent, to put them away from the communion of the church, of which they show themselves to be unworthy.

Most people would conceive this to be punishment; but in reality it is no such thing. Excommunication in the church of Rome is indeed a dreadful engine employed for the punishment of those who offend the holy see; and I am afraid that many Protestants have derived their ideas of excommunication from Rome. I do not say, it is not a dreadful thing, as administered according to the word of God, because it really is so; but all that is dreadful in it arises from the state of mind of the individual who incurs the sentence, not from the sentence itself. It is never lawfully executed, but in cases of obstinate perseverance in wickedness, and refusing to repent. Nothing can be imagined more dreadful than this. Such rebellion against the authority of God, shows that one is not fit for the kingdom of God; and putting him out of the church is doing him no injury; it is no punishment; it is indeed all the benefit which the church can confer upon him; it is calculated to convince him of his sin, and it prevents him from committing greater sin, by continuing to profane divine ordinances. In short, there is nothing in it that affects the person or the property of the individual. His personal and civil rights remain untouched. He is deprived of nothing but the fellowship of saints, a thing for which he has no value, a thing which, indeed, he despises, else he would not prefer the pleasures of sin.

I am aware that on this subject the apostle Paul uses strong language. He speaks of excommunication as a delivering over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, (1 Cor. v. 5;) from which there is a vulgar idea prevalent, that the church claims the power of delivering individuals into the hands of the devil, to be tormented; but the words really mean no more than turning persons over to that society or class of men to which they belong. There are only two kingdoms on earth: the kingdom of Christ, and the kingdom of Satan. The former is the church, the latter is the world. The members of the former are gathered out of the latter; they are separated from the world, and added to the church by the faith of the gospel. Many, by false pretences, have been joined to the church; but when this is discovered, as it is by their committing sin, and obstinately refusing to repent, then, by the authority of Christ, declared by his apostle, such persons are to be delivered over to that kingdom from which they came, from which they were never truly separated, and to which they are still cordially attached, as is evident by their love of sin; this is giving them over to Satan, their own master, the god of this world, who ruleth in the children of disobedience. This is precisely the view of the passage entertained by the church of Scotland, as appears by the following extract from PURDIVAN, Art. Excom. 6, 10. "Why the apostle (1 Cor. v. 5) expresses excommunication by delivering unto Satan, may be for this, among other reasons, that Satan is called the god of this world, as world is taken in opposition to the church of God; so that delivering to him, implies no more than that, (Matt. xviii. 17,) "if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and publican," thereby letting us know how dreadful a thing it is to be shut out from the ordinary means of grace and salva

tion, and exposed to the temptations of our grand adversary the devil." Still there is nothing here of the nature of punishment properly so called, nothing done in vengeance of a crime; and one cannot be said to be shut out from the ordinary means of grace and salvation, unless he shall voluntarily withdraw from hearing the gospel preached, from which he is by no means excluded by excommunication.

I am aware, also, that the word punishment is used by our translators in reference to excommunication, 2 Cor. ii. 6, but it is used only in that limited sense which signifies rebuke or chastisement. It does not mean any thing that is penal, or inflicted in vengeance of a crime. The original word eripia is indeed rendered rebuke in all the other English translations to which at present I have access. The authorized version of Queen Elizabeth is," It is sufficient unto the same man that he was rebuked of many." The Rhemish translation is," To him that is such a one, this rebuke sufficeth that is given of many."

CHAPTER XX.

THE SUBJECT CONTINUED. THE POPE DOES ASSUME THE POWER OF INFLICTING TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT, AND IS THEREFORE ANTICHRISTIAN. THIS, HOWEVER, HAS AL

WAYS BEEN USED TO ADVANCE HIS OWN INFLUENCE AND WEALTH. CURIOUS INSTANCE OF THIS IN THE HISTORY OF KING JOHN, OF ENGLAND. FORM OF EXCOMMUNICATION, BULL EXCOMMUNICATING QUEEN ELIZABETH.

SATURDAY, November 28th, 1818. An indulgence, according to the Douay Catechism, is a releasing of the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven. From this it is evident that the church of Rome claims the power of inflicting temporal punishment; and that she has often done so is proved by her history. In my last number I endeavoured to show that the church of Christ has nothing to do with the punishment of any man whatever; and that there is nothing of the nature of punishment in any part of her administration, even with regard to offenders. I believe I might even take higher ground, and maintain that, in days of primitive purity, the discipline of the church, and public rebuke, when the occasion required it, were considered privileges. When a person had been left to fall into sin, and to give offence to his brethren, he had no peace in his own mind till the offence was removed. He came, therefore, to the church. begging that he might be allowed, by public profession of his sorrow, to do away, as much as possible, the offence which he had given; and to have refused him this favour, not the granting of it, would have been a punishment. In short, the whole discipline of the church, even when it extends to the excommunication of a member, is a process of mercy and kindness to the individual, and to the church. If this be a fair exhibition of the law of Christ, as I think it will be found to be on a careful examination of the New Testament, then whatever is opposed to this must be antichristian, and of this I am again about to convict the church of Rome.

Excommunication is simply to separate from communion. The members of the church of Christ have a mutual participation of cer

tain privileges which are common to them all, as Christians, and of which none but Christians can participate. I use the word Christian in the New Testament sense, as denoting separation from the world, and union to Christ by the faith of the gospel. Such persons only can have communion with Christ, and with one another, in a spiritual sense, as members of his body. When one has professed to be a Christian, and has been admitted to the communion of Christians, but afterwards makes it evident, by sinful conduct, and refusing to be reclaimed, that he is not what he professed to be, he is put away, as one who cannot possibly enjoy Christian communion, but who under the semblance of it, must injure himself, and mar the comfort of the church. This I take to be all that is meant by excommunication.

But the church of Rome makes use of this as an engine of cruelty and oppression, and for the purpose of extending and maintaining her dominion over the kings and kingdoms of this world. This of itself is antichristian. Christ, when on earth, did not claim authority in temporal matters. He gave no commission to his apostles to do so; nay, he positively forbade them; and told them that his kingdom was not of this world. But the church of Rome, or rather the pope as her head, claims dominion over the whole earth, and all things in it. Though this authority were exercised ever so mildly, and ever so much for the good of the human race, the very claim is antichristian, because it is opposed to the plain command of Christ.

I do not suppose it possible that an authority usurped contrary to the will of God, can be exercised for the glory of God or the good of men; but as a mere speculation, let us suppose for a moment that it were so. Let us imagine to ourselves the head of the Romish church deeply interested for the happiness of the human race, and exercising his unlimited powers to promote good order, and peace, and civilization, throughout the world; and that the only instrument he made usc of for this purpose was excommunication. We should then find him

restraining ambition, regulating the government of princes, and compelling them to rule for the good of their subjects. No one would dare to oppress the weak, to make war upon his neighbour, or shed the blood of his own subjects, under pain of being excommunicated, and overwhelmed by the anathemas which the pope held in his hand for the correction or destruction of his rebellious children.

Now, the very reverse of this has been the practice of the holy father of Rome, as is demonstrated by the history of Europe for more than a thousand years. He professed to have the keys of heaven and hell in his own hands, to open and shut at his pleasure. But when was it known that he shut the gates of heaven, or opened those of hell, to any individual however wicked, though stained with every crime that man could commit, if he were but submissive to the holy see ? The fact is, men might murder their nearest relatives, might lay waste whole provinces of unoffending neighbours by fire and sword, and live in the habitual practice of all possible wickedness, and yet enjoy full communion with the church of Rome in all her sacraments, in all her privileges and honours, and in all her prospects of future happiness. But if any man called in question one iota of the pope's authority, he was visited by all the terrors of excommunication;-and if the offender was a king, the whole nation suffered with him.

VOL. I.-22