no governor, pastor, or Prelate, has power to turn men out of Christ's Church, or to impose the continuance of an unworthy member upon the Church; but the brotherhood hold the power in their own hands. 2. That every member of the Church has a right to be judged by his peers. That is, THE CHURCH IS NOT A MONARCHY, BUT A REPUBLIC; and from this idea, elaborated by our Puritan forefathers, and vindicated by their sufferings and firmness, is derived the very idea and germ of our AMERICAN REPUBLIC.

In this point of view, the organization of the Puritan Churches differs heaven-wide from all Prelatical Churches. On the Episcopal scheme, whatever discipline may be exercised, it is to be exercised arbitrarily by the Rector and Bishop. The people have not the slightest power. They can neither exclude an unworthy associate, nor defend an injured one. In this most important respect, the Bishop is King, and the Rector is a subordinate satrap; the people have no right nor duties in the case, except to acquiesce in the mandate of their masters. On the Prelatical scheme, the offence is never told "to the Church," the Church is never "gathered together" for such a purpose; but Christ's law is set aside and forbidden.

Attempts have been made to evade the force of these two passages in Matt. xviii., and 1 Cor. v.

It is said with regard to the direction in Matt. xviii., that the Church was not then constituted; and consequently that a Christian congregation cannot be the Church intended; but that the direction means, Tell it to the synagogue. The absurdity of this evasion appears from several considerations. (1.) The disciples could understand the meaning of the word Church here as well as they could in the passage two chapters previous, Matt. xvi., when Christ says, "On this rock will I build my Church;" he could not refer to building up a Jewish synagogue. (2.) Nothing shows that the word Church here, is used out of its usual sense. It was one of the most common words among the disciples, from this time to the end of the New Testament. (3.) It is impossible to suppose that Christ would refer his disciples to the Jewish synagogue as a proper tribunal when the Jews had already agreed, that if any man should confess Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. Surely Christ did not require his disciples to treat such a person, so cast out of a Jewish synagogue, as "a heathen man and a publican."

With regard to 1 Cor. v., an invasion is attempted which is thus set forth by Mr. Chapin in his "Primitive Church." "The sentence," he says, "was by the Apostle, the execution of it was committed to the Church, either as a part of their official duty, or in consequence of the Apostle's absence." (p. 139.)

But Paul's direction is no sentence, he is only laying down the law, under which, the Church is the tribunal to hear, determine, and execute.

1. He had heard of the case only by report. Is he passing sentence of condemnation on hearsay, without trial, and without specifying the person on whom the sentence is pronounced?

On the principle laid down by Mr. Chapin, a diocesan Bishop has only to hear a report concerning some member of a Church at a distance, and forthwith he may pronounce his sentence, which the Church must execute. They may guess who it is that is condemned; and if the person arrested pleads not guilty, no matter, the Church is no tribunal: they cannot institute an inquiry whether he has done this thing, for sentence is passed, and they are only executioners! The only possible inquiry which they are competent to make is, whether this is the person whom the Bishop intends; if so, away with him; he is condemned, sentenced, executed without trial! Is this the law of Prelacy? Why even a Jew could demand, "DOTH OUR LAW JUDGE ANY MAN BEFORE IT HEAR HIM?" Paul himself said with indignation, “They have bEATEN US OPENLY UNCONDEMNED, BEING ROMANS: and now do they thrust us out privily?" Was Paul a man to pronounce sentence without a hearing? Even if he had done so, the Church must have instituted an inquiry, (1.) who was the man intended and (2.) whether he had "done this thing," since Paul condemns no other: so that in any case the Church is the tribunal to hear and determine; and Paul's direction can be regarded in no other light than as an instruction concerning the law and their duty in the case.

* *

2. The context shows this to be the nature of Paul's injunction. "Purge out the old leaven." "I wrote to you in an epistle, not to company with fornicators." "But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if ANY MAN THAT IS CALLED A BROTHER, be a fornicator," &c., &c., " with SUCH AN ONE, no, not TO EAT." Here is no sentence upon a particular individual, but a GENERAL LAW applicable to the case of "ANY MAN” that is called brother, who is found to be "SUCH A ONE:" and to make the matter entirely indubitable, the Apostle adds-" Do not YE JUDGE them that are within ?"*

* Our author himself is not satisfied with his interpretation, though he hangs tremendous consequences upon it. After taking his stand, that Paul is here pronouncing a judicial sentence, which the Church is merely called upon to execute, he says (p. 139), "There is another interpretation of this passage, which may, after all, be the true one.' * * * "In this view, the decree of the Apostle would have the force of a Canon, and the office of the Church would be the execution of the law. * * The act of the Church, therefore, in either point of view, was that of execution." This is erroneous! If Paul is not giving a judicial sentence, but only declaring the law, or "Canon, then the Church does not execute a sentence; but institutes a process of law. The Church is therefore a Tribunal; to hear, decide,

On turning to 2 Cor. ii. 6, we find that the Church had exercised discipline upon the offender to good purpose. He had repented; and now Paul exhorts the Church to restore him. "Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many; so that contrarywise, ye ought rather to forgive him."

Such is Christ's LAW on the subject of discipline. Such are the powers and responsibilities which Christ has reposed in the Church. Who has a right to take them away? By what authority does a Church of Christ ever surrender these powers and responsibilities into the hands of Prelates? Can they do it without altering the very constitution which Christ has given to his Church, and trampling the fundamental laws of his kingdom under their feet?*

and pronounce sentence, according to law; i. e., The power of discipline is, by the Word of God, reposed in the Church. He appears to value his book as the work of a lawyer: but what will lawyers say to the legal acumen, that can see no distinction between a " Canon" or general rule or principle of law, and a sentence awarding the penalty of that canon to a particular transgressor? And what will the lawyers say to a judgment on hearsay; a sentence without a trial; a sentence to be executed without designating the person?

* Dr. Hawkes, in his "Constitution and Canons," says that the "Rubrics" before the communion service, requiring the minister to repel evil livers from the communion, and to give notice to the Bishop, is all the provision for any discipline upon ordinary members of the Church. He says, p. 362," We know of no other law of the Church, which practically reaches the case of an offending layman but this; and there are very few Dioceses in which any provision is made by canon for investigating or trying the case of a layman. He must, therefore, so offend as to come within the terms of the rubric, or we know not how he is to be disciplined."

What usurpation and perversion is here! The priest's judgment, caprice, or will, without any trial or defence, takes away one of the dearest rights of Christ's people. The Bishop only can institute an inquiry, on complaint in writing by the repelled party; and then there are very few Dioceses in which any provision exists for investigating or trying the case of a layman! The layman, therefore, has no remedy but in the good pleasure or mercy of his rector or Bishop. He can demand nothing of right. A punishment which Christ did not enjoin, is to be inflicted by an authority different from that to which Christ entrusted the power of discipline; punishment is inflicted arbitrarily, without trial, and in most Dioceses without any method of redress! Can there be a more flagrant or fundamental departure, in matters of discipline, from the laws of Christ's house? And that Church talks about Apostolicity, and Primitive order!

XXIII.

THE CHURCH, AS TO EARTHLY RULE, A REPUBLIC, AND NOT A MONARCHY.

Observation of distinguished Civilians. Inseparable connection between doctrine and the genius of government. Prelacy incompatible with Christ's injunctions. Claim of Bishops to be irresponsible sovereigns. Republican principles recognized by the Apostles. Popular elections. Mistake with regard to the word Ordain.

It is remarkable how men of comprehensive views, and free from sectarian bias, have agreed with regard to The RepublicanISM OF CHRISTIANITY. "Christianity," says Montesquieu, "is a stranger to despotic power." "The religion," says De Tocque ville," which declares that all are equal in the sight of God, will not refuse to acknowledge that all citizens are equal in the eye of the law. Religion is the companion of liberty in all its battles. and all its conflicts; the cradle of its infancy and the divine source of its claims." "The friends of liberty in France are accustomed to speak in enthusiastic commendation of the Republicanism of the Scriptures." The Abbé de la Mennais, acknowledged as one of the most powerful minds in Europe, little as he regards Christianity as a revelation from God, familiarly speaks of its Author as "The Great Republican." Our own De Witt Clinton said, "Christianity, in its essence, its doctrines, and its forms, is republican."*

In the view of Christianity all men are " of one blood." Christianity extends its laws over the rich and over the poor, the peasant and the prince, the bondman and the free alike. In its doctrines, its demands, and its eternal retributions, it is a leveller like the grave. There is one way of salvation for the Apostle and the publican. The most exalted in the Church is only "as he that doth serve;" he has no prerogative to come with any "Priestly intervention" between the merest beggar and the Throne; the merest beggar may come and must come before the mercy seat for himself. So surely do these doctrines tend to republicanism, and to break up all spiritual despotisms, that no * These citations are from Dr. Spring's " Obligations of the World to the Bible."

Hierarchy, Protestant or Romish, dares hold fearlessly to the Bible alone as the rule of faith, and to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, to the renunciation of all priestly interventions for the forgiveness of sins. The sure tendency of Prelacy is through Puseyism to Popery: so essentially and inseparably are the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel connected, in the long run and on a broad scale, with the genius of the government adopted in the Church. Give people the Bible alone for their rule, and justification by faith alone, and they will neutralize or cast off the Hierarchy. Impose upon them the dogmas of priestly interventions through a successional priesthood, and they cannot remain free. If any one imagines this to be mere theory, we fearlessly challenge him to point us to any facts that contradict it in the whole history of Christianity. Low CHURCH AND EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE GO TOGETHER. HIGH CHURCH STANDS ASSOCIATED WITH PUSEYISM OR POPERY THE WORLD OVER; thus it has been, is now, and ever must be, till causes shall be disjoined from their effects, and the world turn once more to chaos.

The tendency of the true Gospel principles is to bring the most absolute despotism under the limits of law; to imbue limited monarchies more and more with the spirit of popular institu tions; to prepare the people to govern themselves; and finally to establish everywhere the spirit and the reality, if not the very forms of a republic.

The great founder of Christianity seemed to have in view this elevation and ultimate freedom of the whole race, when he enjoined it upon his disciples to "call no man master;" thus binding the conscience to God's throne, and setting it free from all human domination. The great design seems to be, like that of Eden, to exalt and discipline the individual soul, and to prepare it for citizenship in God's free, but holy and everlasting kingdom. In the same manner he left his worship simple and free; forbidding all his disciples to judge their brethren in "meats" or "days;" and by parity of reason, forbidding them to judge each other, in rites and forms; and forbidding all alike to be subject, in such matters, to the ordinances and commandments of men. In the same manner, pointing to "Lordship," and nobility, among the nations, he said to his Church, "It shall not be so among you." He carefully laid down such rules of discipline, as leave the authority in the hands of the Church; thus making it a republic. And surely, if any one maintains that a brotherhood of Christians, under the few simple rules, and for the simple ends of Church government, are imcompetent to govern themselves, he ought for ever to abandon the idea, that the indiscriminate people, of an extended state, with all the complication of interests and laws which come under the purview of civil gov