Chas learned to talk of the latter, and thence denies the former; H-to talk of the former, and thence denies the latter. There is something very bad working in Ireland in the way of questioning our authority to put forward the Gospel to the world. It has been opposed determinately, and by those who abhor, as much as the patrons of the sentiment, all usurpation of peculiar authority here, such as belonged to the Apostles. But no man, who is fully persuaded of the truth of the Gospel, will be at a loss for the authority for asserting and maintaining it in public and in private. The divine authority of the Word is his authority for this. I consider the opposite idea as connected with absolute scepticism as to all divine truth. CXXXI. TO THE SAME. March 17, 1829. THE faith which stands not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God, is single-eyed. It is not distracted with the various inquiries-what will this or that man do or say? who will concur with me? what will be the consequences? "Thus saith the Lord," decides every thing; and shuts out all consideration about other persons, and all calculation of consequences. "Where the word of the king is, there is power," Ec.viii. 4. :" and it is indeed in the midst of his enemies that he reigns. It is with his rod-the sceptre of his power-that he feeds his people. (Mic. vii. 14. Ps. cx. 2.) The word, rendered feed, includes the reclaiming them from their wanderings, and every other exercise of the pastoral office. And he is indeed glorious, "standing there and feeding in the majesty of the name of Jehovah." (v. 4.) I heard it remarked lately, that when we read in the Old Testament of the wonderful interferences and glorious displays of Jehovah in his dealings with his people Israel, of the pillar of a cloud by day, and the flaming fire by night, &c. &c., our foolish hearts are secretly disposed to look back at these, as more glorious than any thing we know of now. But we may consider the thought rebuked by that word of the Lord-"Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." John iv. 48. We are expressly taught that the greatest glory of the law of Moses was as nothing in comparison of the things now revealed to us, but revealed (not as the former glories) to the senses, but to faith-that faith which is the conviction of things not seen. The former kingdom is called carnal and earthly, in comparison of that heavenly kingdom into which we have been brought. And the superior excellence of the glory of this, consists in the superior clearness with which the same God of Israel has revealed, and does continually reveal to us the same name, or character which He proclaimed, when his servant Moses entreated to be shown his glory-" Merciful and gracious, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, and that will not make a full end;" (for so the words ought to be rendered) but will leave a remnant, in whom, as the vessels of mercy before ordained unto glory, He will make known the riches of his glory," as the just God and the Saviour. The clear discovery of the way in which His mercy reigns through righteousness unto eternal life, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; this is all the glory of that house which is his own, Heb. iii. 6.; and blessed are they that dwell in it, Ps. lxxxiv. Well may they be still praising Him, and saying-" Blessed be His glorious name for ever; and let the whole earth be filled with His glory, Ps. lxxii. 19. 4. CXXXII. TO MISS F April 24, 1829. DEAR MISS F.-I had written the additional remarks, which I send you, before the receipt of your letter this morning. I am not a little surprised at your thinking any knowledge of the Greek original necessary to ascertain the correctness of what I offered, when you surely must be aware that the English phrase, which our translators have employed, no not to eat," is of precisely the same import as "not even to eat." I am equally surprised and pained at your saying, that if it mean "not even to eat"-you are quite incapable of understanding the meaning of the chapter:" for, surely, whether you admit the meaning asserted or not, you cannot deny that it is perfectly intelligible; as intelligible as the direction of another Apostle, that I should not "receive into my house" (2 John 10.) a person whom he describes, nor bid him God speed. We may contend against the reasonableness of such precepts; we may reject the meaning assigned, as not the real meaning: but to talk of being incapable of understanding it, is indeed very unreasonable. You quite mistake one of my remarks, when you suppose that I intended to impute to you any want of activity in circulating the view you have adopted. But indeed, now it appears that you were never of one mind with us on this divine command. You may perceive by M's letter that I am in communication with the Dublin church on the subject. But I have no idea that the case of scriptural discipline in the church here (however similar) should be stopped, till the brethren in Dublin come to some decision of a controversy, which they have allowed to be raised among them. If VOL. II. 2 G they will not concur with us in maintaining the precept, of course our connexion with them also will cease. The prospect is very melancholy, but not so melancholy as it would be, that some outward connexion should be kept up by our compromising the laws of the kingdom of heaven. However, He, to whom nothing is impossible, can yet dispel the black cloud that impends. REMARKS ON 1 COR. V. 11. REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING LETTER. HERETOFORE I had supposed that we were all of one mind upon the apostolic precept given in 1 Cor. v. 11. and there are few (if any) of the divine precepts on which there appears less room for any difference of judgment among disciples. But I am sorry to find that there has been privately adopted a misinterpretation of the passage, which amounts to an absolute rejection of it: and this is circulating privately, and spreading like leaven. It would be more suitable to the principles of Christian fellowship, that when any individual in the connexion adopts a view of any part of the divine rule, different from that in which the body are professedly united, this diversity should be openly avowed to the brethren. The opposite course is more suitable to those religious sects, who agree to differ amicably upon the divine commands. But waving this for the present, I would proceed to expose briefly the falsehood of the interpretation assigned by and in which appeared to concur. They interpret the expression "with such an one no not to eat," as referring to the eating of the Lord's supper with such a character. Now, in the first place, there cannot be found throughout the New Testament any instance in which the simple expression of eating with a person, is used for eating the Lord's supper with him; while there are several instances of the same word being employed in its obvious signification of joining with persons in civil intercourse, as when the disciples and their Master are reproached for eating with publicans and sinners. But, secondly, the plain force of the expression "NO NOT to eat," or as it would literally be rendered, "not EVEN to eat with such a person," is utterly inconsistent with the notion that the eating intended is the eating the Lord's supper. Would it not be really profane to represent as a small and ordinary thing, that most solemn act of Christian fellowship, in which disciples join together in showing forth the Lord's death, and exhibit their heavenly union in him with one another? Yet such decisively would be the profane import of the language as so misinterpreted. “I enjoin you not to associate with those called brethren, but fornicators, &c. &c.-with such an one not EVEN to eat the Lord's supper." But, thirdly, the misinterpretation is still more abundantly refuted by the connexion of the 11th verse with the 10th. There we find the apostle expressly allowing to Christians that companionship with such characters of the world-and marking the impossibility of our avoiding it without going out of the world-that companionship which he forbids us to maintain with the same characters when appearing in the Christian, But did he mean to allow them to hold fellowship in the ordinance of the supper with fornicators of the world? The three verses (9. 10. and 11.) are most closely connected, and plainly amount to this: I enjoin you not to associate with forni. cators, &c. not even in convivial intercourse: but when I say this, I intend such characters only, when they have appeared in your Christian body, and not fornicators of the world. For how could you avoid their society, unless ye were altogether to go out of the world? Nay, if any of the infidel world bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go, use your liberty. But not so if any one called a brother, &c. Now, taking the 11th verse in this connexion, from which it cannot be disjoined, how can any one say that the eating which is allowed to Christians with a fornicator, &c. of the world, but forbidden with a fornicator called a brother, is the eating of the Lord's supper? : I hear so many extraordinary things, that I should not be much surprised if I heard some such objection as this, against the view which I have contended for- And is it only in civil companionship that we are forbidden to associate with fornicators, &c. appearing in the church, and are we allowed to keep them in the Christian fellowship?' Any one starting such an objection must willingly overlook what has gone before and what follows. In the 4th and and 5th verses, the apostle has expressly commanded the Corinthian church to put away such a character from their Christian fellowship; and he briefly recalls their attention to that command at the close of the chapter distinct from this, though closely connected with it, is the direction which he gives in the 11th to regulate their deportment towards such an one, even in the civil intercourse of this life. The wisdom of the latter direction is disputed. urged against it" What additional punishment is there in not having him at our table, after we have removed him from our Christian fellowship?" It is a very awful thing to set up our wisdom against the wisdom of God; and when we attempt it, it is no wonder that our wisdom should be found folly, as it obviously is in the present case. What can be more suitable, what more adapted to keep alive on our minds a due sense of the awfulness of the case of one, who has rebelled against the divine word-as well as consistently to present to him our solemn testimony against his rebellion-than that we should be enjoined to abstain from all that intercourse and companionship with him, even in the things of this life, which would import complacency in him and satisfaction in his society? And this at once exposes the futility of an objection which some have started, as if the precept were impracticable, as inconsistent in many cases with the duties which are imposed on him by the various relations of life? Should a husband refuse to eat his meals with his wife, or a wife with her husband, a parent with a child, or a child with his parent, if one of the parties be a disciple, and the other has been put away from the church ?'-Is there, in such a case, any of that convivial intercourse which the apostle really forbids, and which is sought from mutual complacency in each other? I would freely say, in reply to such cavils, that while I contend for the apostolic precept in its real and obvious import, I should not think that I violated the precept at all, by actually partaking of a meal (in many cases) at the same table with one of the characters described. I dare not, for instance, either ask him to an entertainment that I made, or accept of his invitation; in doing so I should break a plain command. But if I were invited to dine by one of the world, and found at his table one who had once been in Christian fellowship with me, but was put away, should I therefore leave the table? I have known some that would, and I respect their adherence even to the letter of the Word, though I think it not enjoined by the spirit of it. Have I sought his society? In my remaining at the table, is there any thing indicative of my complacency in him? or is there any thing that contaminates me, any more than in dining in the same house with him, or in the same city? No-I should remain at the table without scruple, while guarding my deportment against even the appearance of familiarity with him, or of pleasure in his society. CXXXIII. TO THE SAME. April 25, 1829. Her communi In addition to the paper of remarks which I sent you yesterday, on 1 Cor. v. 11, allow me now to request your attention to the following, suggested by -'s letter to you. cation makes me more acquainted than I was before with the extraordinary ground taken by her and others, for their rejection of the apostolic command. But before I notice that, let me remark how awful it is that she has not condescended to take the slightest notice of the Apostle's words, “ not even to eat with such an one" or to give the least intimation what she conceives to be their meaning, but absolutely passes them over, as if they were unworthy of consideration. "" Whatever the dealing was there ordered, it could only be so long as the offender was called a brother, which he certainly is no longer after he is put out of the body. Paul says, What have I to do to judge them that are without," &c. The Apostle had commanded the Corinthians to have no fellowship with fornicators; and he now remarks, that this prohibition related not to fornicators of the world, but to the case of such a character appearing within the Christian body-such as had now occurred in the incestuous person; proving thus, from the remark, that he had nothing to do to judge them that were without, and that the Corinthians must needs go out of the world if they were not to associate with its fornicators. With respect to such a character |