Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

The nature of the penalties made | It has no penalty of its own, but

known to Adam, has been already confidered. We shall now attend to the threatenings of the Gofpel, and shall attempt to fhow, that they are fuch, that the veracity of God requires him to execute them against all fuch as incur them, by living and dying in unbelief; which was not the cafe with the penalty of the law against the tranfgreffor. That the threatenings of the Gofpel are, in this refpect, effentially different from the penalty of the law, may be conclufively argued from the confideration, that the penalty of the law had been already revealed, before the Gofpel was given; and therefore there could be no need that the penalty fhould be repeated in the fame way, and if it should feem to any one, that there might be need of this, yet the Gofpel does not profefs to be a repetition of the law, or of its penalties; but to be a very ferent difpenfation. It reveals to upon particular terms, which are there ftated, thofe penalties can, and fhall be difpenfed with. And the threatenings of the Gospel are defigned to affure

us, that

us,

dif

that thofe penalties shall not be difpenfed with, upon any other terms, than those which it reveals. Thefe are repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jefus Christ. Therefore it is declared, He that believeth on the Son of God is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already-He is condemned by the law, and not rescued by the gofpel, and therefore the wrath of God abideth on him. All the threatenings of the gofpel, except for the particular fin of unbelief alone, are of this nature, and are manifeftly defigned to limit the release which it propofes from the penalties of the law, to fuch as repent and believe.

for rejection of Christ, and this is fo circumstanced that it cannot admit of the fmalleft doubt whether it will be executed, for it falls on fuch only, as are condemned by the law, and excluded from any benefit by Chrift, by the limitations of the gofpel.

the gofpel not, only limit the re4. Befides, the threatenings of leafe to fuch as believe, but they efit of this difpenfation may be felimit the period in which the ben

cured, and confine it to this life.

They affure us that fuch as neglect to avail themselves of the prefent opportunity, fhall fuffer the direct declare that judgment fhall be acourfe of law and juftice. They warded according to the deeds done here in the body. All this proves, that the threatenings of the gofpel are properly limitations to the extent of its favors, and fo are pledged his word, that the law predictions, in which God has

fhall be executed on all others.

They are not mere penalties, but declarations which engage God, in point of truth, to fee that they are executed.

5. Moreover, the reprefentation of the day of judgment, given in the 25th chapter of Matthew, evidently appears to be a prediction of what God is determined fhall take place. It is not given in the ftile of a penalty, but of a plain prediction. It declares that there will then be two claffes of people, and that one fhall be juftified, and the other punished. This therefore, and other fimilar paffages in the holy fcriptures fhow, that God, to prevent unbelievers from prefuming on his mercy, fince it is known that he is a merciful being, has given his word, that none fhall be benefitted by his mercy,

except according to the reftrictions of the gospel. Again,

oufly confider, that this gofpel, a bove all other things, renders it evident, that such a hope is in vain! MIKROS.

T

FOR THE CONNECTICUT EVAN-
GELICAL MAGAZINE.
HE Apoftle fays, 1 Cor. v.
9-11. "I wrote unto
you in an epiftle, not to compa-
ny with fornicators. Yet not al-
together with the fornicators of
'this world, or with the covetous,

[ocr errors]

6

or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then you must needs go 'out of the world. But now have written unto you, not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with fuch an one, no not to eat."

[ocr errors]

6. The law did not fay that no mercy fhould be exercised towards tranfgreffors: But the gofpel fays explicitly, that no mercy fhall be extended to any, except according to the limitations it contains; no, not in any future period; but that all others fhall go away into everlafting fire, and fhall be utterly deftroyed. These, and numerous declarations of the like import asfure us, in a way which engages the truth of God, that there will be no further exercise of grace. The threatenings of the gospel are therefore effentially different from the penalties of the law. So that the confideration, that God does in a special cafe, carefully defcrib-railer, ed and limited, difpenfe with the penalties of the law, in confideration of the atonement of Chrift, does not give any ground of uncertainty, whether he will alfo difpenfe with the threatenings of the gofpel, which are pofitive affertions, that the penalties of the law fhall not be remitted, beyond the limits expreffed in the gospel. The threatenings of the gospel are nothing more nor lefs, than the exprefs declarations of God, in addition to the penalties of the law, that he will not dispense with those penalties, in favor of any, who live and die in unbelief, with an additional penalty against sinners, who have the light of the gofpel, for unbelief itself. And fo, instead of opening a door of hope for fuch as die in unbelief, they are defigned to make it evident, that their cafe is altogether defperate.

All agree that, if a member of the Chriftian church become openly immoral, he is to be caft out. But all are not agreed respecting the treatment, which is to be given him, after the fentence of excommunication is paffed. Some fup

pofe that Christians are here forbid. den to eat with him at common meals; others, only at the Lord's table.

The following obfervations are offered in fupport of the opinion, that Chriftians are forbidden to eat, even at a common table, with a perfon, who is excommunicated from the church, viz.

1. The terms, in which the prohibition is expreffed, naturally lead us to fuppofe that, when the apof tle fays, with fuch an one, no not to eat, he meant, at a common meal. Oh that all fuch as cherish a fe- In the eighth verfe, the apoftle cret hope, that God will fhew them fpeaks of the facramental fupper; mercy, though they die in unbelief, and there makes ufe of a term, because he has provided the gofpel which he appropriates to this goffalvation for those who were con- pel feaft; but which cannot be apdemned by the law, would feri-plied to eating, at a common meal.

E

eat, expreffes the prohibition by a term, which as certainly comprehendseating together at common meals, as, at the Lord's table; it appears unquestionable, that, eating at a common table, with a perfon excominmunicated from a church, is as much, as ftrictly, and as literally forbidden, as eating with fuch an one at the table of the Lord. Nor can the reverse be made appear, unless evidence can be produced, (which it is prefumed never can be) that the term, in which the prohibition is expreffed, exclufively fignifies eating together at the Lord's table; or, that the Apostle's argument neceffarily requires fo lim

When he fays, "Therefore let us keep the feaft," he makes use of a verb, which he evidently appropriates to the facramental feaft; and, which cannot be used, with propriety, to fignify any other eating, but that at a feaft. When he fays, the eleventh verfe," with fuch an one, no not to eat," he varies the term from that of feafling, to one which is expreffive fimply of eating together; and, which conveys no idea whatever of keeping a feaft. But, when the Apoftle fays, with fuch an one, no not to eat, had he meant the fame eating together, which he had, just before, expreffed by keeping the feaft; it cannot be accounted for, that he should vary the expreffion to one, which contains in it no idea of a feaft; nor, any thing more, than that of two, or more perfons eating together at a common table. It is true, that keeping the feaft, is eating together: but it is equally true, that the word made ufe of, where the Apoftle fays, with fuch an one, no not to eat, naturally conveys no further idea than fimply that of two, or more perfons eating together.

When the Apostle is exprefsly treating on the fubject of Chriftians communing together at the Lord's table, and makes ufe of a word, which he appropriates to the facramental action, and which neceffarily conveys the idea of keeping a feaf; had his object been merely to forbid Chriftians to fit down at the Lord's table, and keep the gofpel feaft, with a perfon excommunicated from the church, it can hardly be conceived that he fhould drop the term, which he had before appropriated; and, adopt another in its ftead, which conveys no idea of feafting, but fignities fimply eating together.

Seeing the Apofile, when he fays, with fuch an one, no not to

ited a conftruction.

2. It appears that the Apostle is here giving fome new and additional directions, beyond what were already contained in the epiftle, of which he here fpeaks. He fays, "I wrote unto you in the (it should be rendered) epiftle, not to company with fornicators." He confidered himfelf as already having given directions, to the Corinthian church, to separate themselves from that focial inter

courfe and familiarity with the openly wicked and profane, which all would fuppofe was proper and commendable among Chriftian brethren. Nevertheless, as Chriftians are mixed and united in the fame civil fociety with others, there is a certain degree of companying with them, to which they are neceffarily compelled by their situation; and, which cannot be avoided without going out of the world. This companying, therefore, with the fornicators of the world, the covetous, the extortioners, &c. is not forbidden to Chriftians. And, as this companying and intercourfe cannot be avoided without going out of the world, it is manifest that the Apostle did not mean to

include, in it, communion at the Lord', table :-For he well knew that fuch companying and communion with the openly wicked, might, well enough, be avoided, by Chrif. tians without their leaving the world.

[ocr errors]

But he has ftill farther directions to give, refpecting feparating from a brother, who is a fornicator, cov, etous, &c. than were included in what he had already written to them against companying with oth er wicked men. The manner of expreffion would naturally imply this. "I wrote unto you in the epiftle, not to company. But now I have written to you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, &c. with fuch an one, no not to eat." If Chriftians were not to company with fornicators, they would know, well enough, that they were not to admit them, with them, at the Lord's table •- -A pro hibition of the lefs, neceffarily including that of the greater. And if the Corinthian Chriftians confidered, even a lower degree of companying with the wicked of the world, than communing with them at the Lord's table, to be unlawful; they, certainly, needed no new precept, or direction, to convince them that, fhould one of their own members abjure his Chriftian profeffion and character, it would be unfuitable for them to admit him to that highest act of Chriftian communion, fitting down with them at the table of the Lord. So much as this might naturally be concluded, without any new and fpecial direction. So much at leaft might naturally be inferred, from our Saviour's own words, in the xviiith of Matthew, where he gave particular directions, how an offending brother was to be treated, if he refused to hear the church.

And, as this gofpel was written many years before the epiftle to the Corinthians, we have abundant reafon to conclude that it was already in their hands.

If this

3. It hence appears that there is a certain degree of companying with the fornicators, &c. of the world, which is not forbidden to Chriftians; which is nevertheless unadmiffible with a brother, who becomes openly vicious. be not the cafe, it is manifeft that the Apostle gives no direction, refpecting the treatment to be given fuch an one, but what was contained in the direction already given not to company with fornicators. But that companying with the fornicators of the world, which is allowable, is not eating with them at the Lord's table: For this may be avoided, by Christians, without their going out of the world. If, then, a lefs degree of companying with a brother, who becomes openly vicious, is permitted to Chriftians; and this difference, with respect to companying, confilt in not eating with the brother; it is plain that the eating with a brother, which is prohibited, must be at common meals. For this reafon, we may naturally fuppofe, it was, that the Apoftle, when he forbade eating with a brother, &c. made ufe of a very different term, from that in which he had, just before, spoken of Chriftians partaking together of the facramental fupper; and this, fuch an one as imports nothing more than fimply eating togeth er.

The word in the original, by which the prohibition under confideration is expreffed, is funesthiein, which fignifies nothing more than eating with fome one. But all will acknowledge that Chriftians may, (funesthiein,) eat with one, who has made no profeffion of Chriftianity: And yet (funesthiein) to cat

&c.

One, being named a brother, may yet become a perfon of an immoral character: And the direc

with a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, is frialy forbidden.tion is plain, how the brethren of And it is worthy of obfervation, a church are, in that cafe, to treat this conftruction of eating with, and him-with fuch an one they are not this only, comports with the Apof- to eat. But to fuppofe the Apof tle's general argument, the objecttle's object was, only to prohibit a of which is, to show that the com- Christian church, the liberty of pany of an excommunicated per- keeping the gospel feaft together, af fon is to be more avoided, than ter one of its members is charged that of those wicked people, who with a fault, left they should comnever made a profeffion of chrifti- mune with a guilty perfon, is, to anity. fay no more, a fuppofition without the least solid foundation.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

2. But if we reflect that excom

;

To all this, however, it is objected, that "a perfon, after excommunication, does not fuftainmunication is a mean, divinely inthe character, or relation of a 'brother: And, therefore, that, ' in the paffage before us, it is not 'to be fuppofed that the Apostle gives any direction whatever, refpecting the manner, in which 'Chriftians are to treat one, who is caft out of the church':-And, 'confequently, that the brethren ' of a church are only forbidden to keep the feast with a brother, 'who is charged with a fault, un'til they have examined the charge, ' and acted upon it as the cafe fhall ' require."

[ocr errors]

To this objection it may be replied,

1. That had it, in fact, been the defign of the Apostle, to give directions to the church, how to treat one, who is now a brother, in cafe he should violate the laws of his holy profeffion, and be caft out; it would be no more than natural to suppose, that he would have expreffed himself in the very words, which he makes ufe of in the paffage before us. When he fpeaks of one that is called a brother, it is obfervable that, to exprefs the idea, he makes ufe of a participle of the paffive. The phrafe, lite rally rendered, is if any one being named a brother, be a fornicator,

ftituted, for the recovery of an offending brother, as much and as really as any of the steps, which are previously to be taken with him this will give additional strength to the argument, which supposes that the Apostle is here giving directions, to Chriftians, how they are to conduct themselves towards one, who is rejected from the church. He had, juft before, informed the Corinthian Chriftians, that a great object, which they were to have in view, in cafting out an offender, his recovery from his fall :He directs to deliver fuch an one to Satan for the deftruction of the flesh, that the fpirit may be faved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Nothing, therefore, can be more natural than to fuppofe, that particular direc tions fhould be given to the church, how to treat a rejected member, in order that this last step, which they could take with him, for his recovery, might, through the bleffing of God, become effectual.

was

And if this be the end, for which an offending brother is to be excommunicated from a Christian church; it evidently appears to be a matter of very great impertance, that Chriftians fhould know in what manner they are to con

« AnteriorContinuar »