4. The Improvement of Christians is another important end of this Institution.

This End has always been promoted, and often in an eminent degree, by a well-directed administration of Christian Discipline. From the social nature of man, that, which concerns others, is instinctively applied to ourselves. From the sins of others, we learn not to sin in the same manner. By their negligence we are warned of our own danger, and induced to watch, and strive, and pray, that we enter not into their temptations. By their repentance, and return to their duty, we are forcibly admonished of our own daily necessity of reformation. Perhaps there is scarcely a more edifying sight, than a lapsed Christian, ingenuously confessing his sin, acknowledging the justice of his punishment, imploring the forgiveness of God and a re-union to the family of Christ, and recommencing the Christian life with new amiableness and beauty. Nothing in this world more resembles the joy of angels over a repenting sinner, than the emotions, excited in the minds of good men by this solemn transaction.

5. Another End of this Institution is to keep the character of the Church unblemished in the eye of mankind.

On the Character of the Church, as it appears to the eyes of the world, depends, in a great degree, the character of Religion itself. In a former discourse, I have shown, how much more real, and impressive, Religion seems to the minds of sinners, when beheld in the life of a person, who adorns the doctrine of God our Saviour, than when seen only with the eye of speculation. The exemplary and unblameable conduct of a Church is proportionally a more convincing, and more persuasive, source of these impressions. When the Church is fair as the Moon, and beautiful as Tirzah: she is also terrible as an army with banners. Genuine virtue is an aw ful object to sinful men. In vain do they labour to shake off their reverence, and their dread, of this object. It is settled in their minds by the unalterable constitution of God: and is irresistibly forced upon them by their consciences, whenever the object is brought before their eyes. Nothing but furious passion, or ab solute profligacy, will prevent any man from entertaining these views. But they are not necessary views only. They are also eminently profitable; as was, I presume, satisfactorily shown in that discourse. He, who is at a loss concerning this truth, may easily satisfy himself by observing what experience abundantly testifies, that, wherever Churches either pervert, or abandon, the discipline instituted by Christ, they themselves become lax, lukewarm, and possessed only of a name to live; and that Religion, around them, hastens towards a final extinction. Wherever this Discipline is scripturally maintained; Churches are adorned with the beauty of holiness; and religion, usually at least, flourishes among those who are without.

IV. My own views concerning the Persons, by whom Discipline is to be administered, will be sufficiently communicated in the following observations.

1. The persons, who are to administer private Remonstrance, are plainly pointed out in the text.

Concerning these, therefore, there can be no debate. Not a little doubt, however, has arisen, in this country at least, concerning the cases, in which such Remonstrance is a necessary commencement of Ecclesiastical Discipline. A multitude of Christians, in our own country, have supposed, that the steps, mentioned in the former part of this discourse, are indispensable in every case of transgression, whether public or private. Others have believed, that, as the case mentioned in the text is a private case merely, and as the discipline involved in it, seems applicable to such a case only, it is not to be employed, when the transgression is public. The latter of these opinions is, in my view, just. In the nature of the case, a public transgression plainly demands no private interference. Them that sin, says St. Paul to Timothy, rebuke before all; that others also may fear. 1 Tim. v. 20. A man that is an Heretic, says the same Apostle to Titus, after a first and second admonition, reject. Tit. iii. 10. By them that sin, I understand the Apostle to mean them that sin publicly; and suppose St. Paul here to direct a public admonition as the immediate, and proper, act of discipline for such a transgression. A Heretic is a sower of divisions, or the leader of a faction, in the Church. Such a person Titus was commanded to reject after a first and second admonition; both plainly public; since they were to be both administered by Titus himself, in the character, and office, of a Minister. This is evident, also, from the reason subjoined in the following verse. Knowing that he, who is such, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. In other words, Because thou knowest, that such a person is subverted, or overturned; and is certainly guilty of sin being proved to be a sinner, by the known fact that he makes divisions in the Church, or heads a party against its peace. It is here, however, to be observed, that two public admonitions are here required to be given to the Heretic before his Excommunication. As there is no difference between Heretics, and other public sinners, I should regard this as the proper rule of proceeding in all ases of Discipline, which were not commenced with private umonition.

But in this Country, there is such an universal persuasion, that Private Remonstrance is indispensable, even where a transgressjon has been public, as to make it, in my view, expedient to commence the process of discipline in this manner, in most, if not all, instances. The minds of Christians, generally, are here fully possessed of a conviction, that this is a right, established by the Scriptures; and, whenever it is omitted, feel as if all, that was ight, had not been done. Excommunicated persons, therefore,

feel satisfied in every such case, that the judgment of the Christian community is so far on their side, and against the proceedings of the Church. This, also, will ordinarily be the opinion of a considerable part of its members. Hence the censure will be stripped of much of its proper power. The man, who is censured, will feel himself to be still in a state of controversy with the Church; and will, therefore, be little inclined to reformation or repentance. The Church will feel itself weakened; and all its enemies will manifest their hostility by clamouring against its injustice. For these reasons, prudence appears plainly to demand the adoption of Private remonstrance as the means of avoiding these evils.

As the administration of this Remonstrance will, in such a case, be a duty incumbent alike on all the members of the Church; it will be asked, By whom shall this duty be performed? The answer to this question must be given differently, according to the different constitutions of Churches. In our own, it ought unquestionably to be performed by persons, commissioned by the Church. No others will be considered as acting in the case with unquestionable propriety.

2. Admonition and Excommunication are to be administered by the Pastor, or, when there is no Pastor, by the Moderator of the Church, in conformity to a vote of the Church.

Wherever a Church is vacant, it will always be expedient, that a neighbouring Minister should be requested to perform this office.

That these sentences should be the result of the vote of the Church, and executed under their authority, is to me completely evident from the Scriptures. This I do not gather from the text; nor from the meaning of the word Church; which, I am well aware, is very various. At the time when the precepts in the text were delivered, the Christian Church was not organized. It may therefore be difficult to settle precisely the sense, in which our Saviour used the term on this occasion; or to make any satisfactory application of it to the case in hand. On the text, therefore, I shall not insist.

There is in the Scriptures a single case of Discipline recited, and, so far as I know, but one, in which the administration was committed wholly to uninspired hands; or, perhaps in better terms, to persons not extraordinarily commissioned to direct Ecclesiastical concerns. This is the case of the incestuous person in the Church at Corinth. St. Paul, in 1 Cor. v. directs the members of that Church to assemble together for the purpose of excommunicating this person in the name of Christ. The Church accordingly assembled, and excommunicated the man, as we are informed in the second chapter of the second Epistle. In the sixth verse of this chapter, St. Paul says, Sufficient to such a man, is this punishment, which was inflicted of many; uso rwv sλsovan; lit

erally, by the majority; that is, by the majority of the Corinthian Church; the persons addressed in this chapter, and throughout these Epistles.

Should it be said, that this sentence was directed by St. Paul; I acknowledge it. But the execution of it was committed to the Corinthian Church as a Body; and it was accordingly executed by their vote, and Ecclesiastical authority. There was, here, no need of a formal trial. The question concerning the guilt of the man was already settled by abundant evidence. The Apostle, therefore, only taught the Corinthian Church their duty in such a case; and required them to perform it. Had he meant to exercise his apostolical authority in a judicial manner; he would have excommunicated the incestuous person by a sentence of his own; as he excommunicated Hymenaus and Alexander; and not have lett him to a sentence of the Corinthian Church. This is further illustrated by the fact, that St. Paul beseeches, not commands, the Corinthians, to restore this excommunicated man: verse 8, Wherefore, I beseech you, that ye would confirm your love toward him. This request plainly teaches us, that, in the view of the Apostle, the Corinthian Church were possessed of the power, by which, this restoration was to be accomplished.

What it was proper for the Corinthian Church to do in this case, is unquestionably proper to be done by every other Church in a similar case. As this is the only Scriptural example, in which a sentence of Excommunication was passed by men, not extraordinarily commissioned; it is, I apprehend, a decisive rule of proceeding to all other Churches. The peculiar conduct of Apostles, and other extraordinarily commissioned persons, must, in most cases, be very imperfectly applicable as a rule for us. It will be impossible, I apprehend, to show, that the powers, sometimes necessarily vested in these men, have descended to any men, who are now living. My own opinions concerning Bishops, in the prelatical sense, have been given in preceding discourses. Ruling Elders are, in my apprehension, scriptural Officers of the Christian Church; and I cannot but think our defection, with respect to these officers, from the practice of the first settlers of New England, an error in Ecclesiastical Government. But the present occasion will not permit an exhibition of my views concerning this subject at large.

There are many cases, in which Individuals are dissatisfied, on reasonable grounds, with the judgment of a Church. It is perfectly obvious, that in a debate between two members of the same Church, the parties may, in many respects, stand on unequal ground. One of them may be ignorant; without family connexions; in humble circumstances; and possessed of little or no personal influence. The other may be a person of distinction; opulent; powerfully connected; of superior understanding; and of great personal influence, not only in the Church, but also in the

Country at large. As things are in this world, it is impossible, that these persons should possess, in any controversy between them, equal advantages. Beyond all this, the Church itself may be one party, and a poor and powerless member the other. In this case also, it is unnecessary to observe, the individual must labour under every supposable disadvantage, to which a righteous cause can be subjected. To bring the parties in these, or any similar circumstances, as near to a state of equality as human affairs will permit, it seems absolutely necessary, that every Ecclesiastical Body should have its Tribunal of Appeals; a superior Judicature, established by common consent, and vested with authority to issue finally all those causes, which, before a single Church, are obviously liable to a partial decision.

Such a tribunal in all the New-England States, except this, is formed, by what is called, a Select Council, that is, a Council mutually chosen by the contending parties. This has long appeared to me a Judicatory most unhappily constituted. The parties choose, of course, such persons, as they suppose most likely to favour themselves. If, therefore, they commit no mistakes in the choice; the Council may be considered as divided in opinion, before it assembles; and as furnishing every reason to believe, that it will not be less divided afterwards. Its proceedings will frequently be marked with strong partialities; and its decisions, if made at all, will not unfrequently be those of a bare majority. Coming from different parts of the country, it will have no common rules of proceeding. After its decisions, its existence ceases. Its responsibility vanishes with its existence; as does, also, the sense of its authority. As the members frequently come from a distance; it can have no knowledge concerning those numerous particulars, which respect the transactions to be judged of; and the charac ters, interests, views, and contrivances, of those, who are immediately concerned. As individuals, these members may, in some instances, have much weight; and in certain circumstances may, by their wisdom and piety, do much good. But all this must arise solely from their personal character. As a Council, as a Judicatory, they can have scarcely any weight at all; for, as they disappear when the trial is ended, they are forgotten in their united character; and, having no permanent existence, are regarded with no habitual respect, and even with no prejudice in their favour. Very often also, as they were chosen on partial principles, they are led of course to partial decisions; and leave behind them very unhappy opinions concerning Ecclesiastical Government at large.

In this State, a much happier mode has been resorted to, for the accomplishment of this object. The Tribunal of Appeal, is here a Consociation; a standing body, composed of the settled Ministers within an associational district, and Delegates from the Churches in the same district: a body always existing, of acknow