LETTER VI.

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,

THERE is nothing more easy than to prejudice the mind against any opinion, by representing it in some unhallowed connection, or associating it with some repulsive heresy. This is often done by those who wish to suppress free inquiry, and to engage others to a rejection of principles which they themselves dislike, and which are destructive of their favourite system. Nor is it to be disguised that this stratagem has often been employed against the principle which it is the design of the present Letter to establish. The right of the church to interpret the laws of the Saviour for purposes of selfgovernment and discipline, has been ranked with the arbitrary usurpations of Papal dominion, which claims to sit in the chair of St. Peter, and to impose, as infallible, her decrees and interpretations, thus making the word of God of none effect. Such imputations, however, are more easily made, than proved. In asserting the right of the church to construe the scriptures, for the purposes mentioned, we wish it to be distinctly understood, that nothing is intended, which would, in the smallest degree, impair the supreme authority of the

word of God, or which would give the church a participation in the Popish claim of infallibility. The scriptures, we hold to be the supreme law of the church; but like all other laws, they must be interpreted, and applied to their respective objects, to render them of any practical utility. And while the right of private judgment is held to be universal, and unalienable, this right is believed to be equally susceptible of being exercised by man in his associated state, as a member of the church, and in his more insulated capacity, as an individual. This, I presume, must be palpable to every reflecting mind. For what more is done by men, when they come to form a judgment on the scriptures, as an ecclesiastical community, than when they act as individuals? Each one, in the exercise of his private judgment, presents his views, which being done, the aggregate, if found to accord, becomes the judgment of the whole. It is then the united judgment, or interpretation of the church; that is, of all her members, acting either personally, or by their representatives; and all this, in perfect consistency with the free, and unrestrained exercise of individual liberty, and private judgment. The judgment of each is as freely exercised, and remains as fully unimpaired in this case, as though it had never been brought into contact with that of any other. There is here, no usurpation of individual rights; no imposition of one man's opinions on the consciences of others, for the purposes of arbitrary rule. Let none, then be startled at the cry of Popish usurpation, which would sacrifice the rights of private judgment, at the shrine of a pretended infallibility, nor prevented from sitting down to an unbiassed examination of the church's right to interpret.

the laws, and instructions of the Saviour, with a view to their application to the purposes of ecclesiastical government and discipline. The question is not to be decided by declamatory and groundless imputations, but by the law, and the testimony."

That the church in her visible, and collective character, is invested with an authoritative power, for the purpose of preserving her purity, and sustaining the integrity of her laws, by the exclusion of disorderly members, has already been proved. This power, it is conceded on all hands, must be exercised agreeably to the word of God, which is the supreme law of the church. But how shall the holy scriptures be applied to the purposes of government, for the detection of errour and crime? Will it be said, that they must be taken as they stand, and thus applied, irrespective of exegetical construction? Then, no man can be subjected to discipline for opinions, or practices of any kind, who professes his belief in the scriptures, as the rule of his faith and practice, and claims conformity to them. For no matter how repugnant both his principles and conduct may be to the scriptures, he may allege that they exactly correspond with them; and the church having no right to interpret the sacred oracles against him, cannot exclude him. So that according to this scheme, none but atheists and infidels, who disavow their belief in the scriptures, can ever be excluded from the church. All others, who profess to receive the Bible as the word of God, and the standard of their faith and practice, must be admitted to holy fellowship in the sacraments,

* See Letters iii. iv. v. passive.

and treated as brethren in the Lord. And such has, in fact, been the case, in those christian communities which have acted on this plan. Thus, the general Baptists in England, according to Mosheim, though they have a Confession of Faith, "reject none from their cɔmmunion who profess themselves christians, and receive the holy scriptures, as the source of truth, and the rule of faith." Accordingly, "Mr. Whiston, though an Arian, became a member of this Baptist community, which, as he thought, came nearest to the simplicity of the primitive, and Apostolic age. The famous Mr. Emlyn, who was persecuted on account of his Socinian principles, joined himself also to this society, and died in their communion." So much for the practical operation of the system!

It is very evident, therefore, according to the notions of those who make the Bible the only test of religious character, and ecclesiastical standing, without any regard to the construction which the church may put upon it, that the power with which she has been invested by her supreme head, for the preservation of her purity and laws, is of no practical utility, as it cannot be applied to any but avowed unbelievers, who neither wish to enter, nor remain within the walls of God's Zion. And, think you, that God would have vested his church with a power which could not be carried into practical operation for her own benefit, agreeably to his requirements? If not, as all must admit, then those views

*Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. Vol. III. p. 549, and Note.-According to a writer in the Christian Advocate, similar, and even more deplor able results followed the adoption of this same system, by the Synod of Ulster, in the North of Ireland--Christian Adv. Sept. 1826, p. p、

402-3.

which would deny to the church the right of interpreting the scriptures, for the purpose of giving practical effect to that system of order which Christ has established in his own house, must be wrong. In order, therefore, that the church may obey the injunctions of the Saviour, by excluding from her fellowship those whose principles, or practices, are at variance with the requirements of the gospel, her right to interpret the scriptures for this purpose must be admitted;

This will, perhaps, be better illustrated, and more easily understood, by stating a particular case. It is embraced in the command of Paul to Titus: "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject." We have already shewn you, that this admonition and rejection of heretical persons, is to be performed by the church, in the exercise of that power, with which Christ has clothed her, for the purposes of her own government. It is an authoritative act, to which the church is bound by the command of her supreme Lord. The duty of the church, therefore, in this case, will not be questioned. The command being imperative, and unconditional, there is no option, but in unconditional obedience.

Now, let us see how the church is to carry this law of the Saviour into effect, on the principles of those who deny her the right of interpreting the scriptures, for purposes of ecclesiastical government. In this process, it is obvious, that the very first step must be to ascertain what is heresy, and what it is that constitutes a * Tit. 3. 10. Letter iii.

K