I

their sitting in judgment upon the offending individual, and determining by their vote whether he was censurable or not; and, if censurable, what kind of censure ought to be inflicted on him? The statement contains not a single word about their being required to do any of these things. There was no necessity for investigating the scandal. It was flagrant. Neither were they required to pronounce judgment upon the offender :- "For (says the apostle) I, verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already concerning him that hath so done this deed." The word in the original, here rendered judged, is keкpika. have determined:-And what was it, the apostle says, he had judged or determined to do concerning the offending individual? "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an, one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh," &c. The apostle had determined, concerning this offender, to deliver him unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh; that is, to cut him off from the communion of the church; and this was to be done when the congregation was 'gathered together." The people were to assemble, but they were not to deliberate concerning the guilt of the individual; neither were they to deliberate whether the sentence of the apostle should be carried into effect or not they were to assemble, as members of the church, that they might be present, and witness the carrying into effect of the judgment which the apostle had pronounced.

As there were elders appointed to bear rule in the church of Corinthas was the case in all the churchesso by these office-bearers the sentence of the apostle would be carried into effect in the presence of the congregation. Some one or other of

the rulers, presiding on the occasion, would intimate the sentence in the midst of the assembled people, and would declare the guilty individual cut off from the communion of the church, agreeably to the command given by the apostle.

In opposition to the view which I have now given of this passage, Dr W. maintains, that "it was not the apostle that excommunicated the incestuous man, but the church. It is true (he says), the apostle pronounces authoritatively, as an apostle, the law respecting the case. He tells the Corinthians what he himself had "judged," or determined, should be done in it. But this was not the man's excommunication. It was, no doubt, their incumbent duty to acquiesce in this judgment, to pass sentence in accordance with it, and to carry the sentence into execution.” -"Our proper inquiry is, what was the part which, in this matter, belonged to the church? And surely

939

the passage leaves no room for doubt here. The man was not excommunicated till the church fulfilled the injunction, 'Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.' P. 241. Does Dr Wardlaw, by these statements, mean to affirm, that the members of the church of Corinth sat in judgment upon the case of this person-that they deliberated whether he ought to be expelled from their communion or not

-and that, after having deliberated, they came to a decision, by a vote, declaring that he ought to be excommunicated. Unless this be the meaning which he intends to convey by his statements, I know not what he means when he says, "It was not the apostle that excommunicated the incestuous man, but the church." And, if such be his meaning, then I ask him what proof he has for making these affirmations? There is no proof to be found in the inspired record, that the members of the church engaged in any such proceedings as

these. Dr W. may, if he please, affirm that they did so. But much as I may be inclined to respect the judgment of my learned brother, I cannot, on a question of this kind, accept of his affirmation as proof. I must abide by what I find in the record. And the record tells me, that the apostle had judged (or determined) already, as though he were present, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver the incestuous person to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. The record further tells me, that this solemn decision of the apostle was to be carried into effect in presence of the assembled congregation. By carrying the decision into effect, I understand public intimation being made of it, and the incestuous person, being declared cut off from the communion of the church, in conformity with the judgment which the apostle had pronounced. The rulers of the church would, as a matter of course, be the official organs employed in carrying this decision into effect.

But Dr Wardlaw points to the twelfth verse of the chapter, as furnishing a strong corroboration of the opinion which he expresses, that the members of the church are entitled to judge in all matters of discipline. That verse is "Do not ye judge them that are within ?" When we, who are Presbyterians, object to the views of our Independent brethren, and say, that they give to the people a power which they are not entitled to possess, namely, the power of exercising government in the church, we are reminded by Dr Wardlaw that this verse stares us in the face, and more than whispers-how can you say so? "Is this not (says he) a recognition of the power of judging? Is it not an express declaration, that all who were within,' that is, evidently, the members of the church, were, by the law of Christ and the constitution of his churches, subjected to their judicial authority,-the mem

bers individually to the church collectively? And to whomsoever it is that judgment is committed, it must follow, that in the same parties is lodged the power of censure." P. 238.

I submit that this text (1 Cor. v. 12) does not prove the point which my friend is so anxious to establish ; for the apostle shows us very clearly in what sense we are to understand the term "6 judge" in the verse now mentioned. It is obviously a different sense from that in which Dr Wardlaw wishes us to understand it. In the beginning of the following chapter, the apostle says-"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels, how much more things that pertain to this life?" (chap. vi. 2-3). No one, surely, will venture to affirm, that the saints are to judge the world and judge angels, in the strict and proper sense of the word. No:-they are to judge, in the sense of assenting to, and acquiescing in, the sentences that shall be pronounced by Christ, who is the sole judge. In the same sense are we,to understand the language of the apostle, when he speaks of the members of the church of Corinth judging "them that are within." They judged in the sense of assenting to, and acquiescing in, the sentences pronounced by their rulers. But, says Dr Wardlaw, there is no mention made in the passage of elders, rulers, or session; and how can the people, when they are said to judge, be considered merely as acting the part of assessors, along with their rulers, in the sentences which they pronounced? "By whom (he asks) is the judgment to be formed and pronounced, to which these as sessors give their assent?"-P. 247, In reply to this objection, I would remind Dr Wardlaw of what he himself has stated, that it is the church of Corinth that is here addressed; and.

66

according to his own admission, a church is "a Christian society, organized with its appropriate offices, according to the mind of Christ; " it consists of two classes of persons, namely, the private members and the elders." It follows, that when the church is addressed, both of these classes are included; and they would have no difficulty in understanding the language of the apostle, when he wrote to them, Do ye not judge them that are within? The rulers would understand it as applicable to them, in pronouncing formal judgment on all cases of discipline submitted to their consideration; and the people would understand it as applicable to them in assenting to the sentences which their rulers pronounced, and showing their acquiescence in them, by refusing to hold religious fellowship with the person or persons that might be excommunicated. It is on this principle that we explain the statement made by the apostle in 2 Cor. ii. 6., where, speaking of the "punishment" or censure inflicted on the incestuous person, he says-"It was inflicted of many." It was inflicted in the presence of the assembled congregation, the private members uniting along with the rulers in carrying into effect the solemn judgment pronounced by the apostle. This they did when they refused to hold communion with the offending individual: they thereby put away from among themselves that wicked person. The only other evidence which Dr Wardlaw brings forward in support of the Independent scheme of church government, in addition to the two passages which I have noticed in the preceding remarks, is the epistles addressed to the seven churches of Asia. But this part of his proof seems designed to show that these churches were not associated together under a common presbytery or synod, rather than that they were Independent or Congregational in their

form of government. The proof which he deduces from the phraseology of these epistles in favour of Congregationalism, is both scanty and general, and does not require any particular notice to be taken of it, especially after the remarks that have been made in a former part of these strictures on the churches of Ephesus and Jerusalem.

If

Before concluding this paper, I must be permitted to add, that I have been struck with the meagre nature of the evidence which Dr Wardlaw, with all his learning and research, brings forward to prove, that the power of government in the church of Christ is lodged in the people, conjointly with the rulers. The only direct proof which he adduces (so far as I have been able to glean from his volume), consists of the two passages on which comments have now been made. The remarks which I have made, will show what slender support these passages give to his cause. we admit Dr Wardlaw's interpretation of them to be correct, then it would appear that, in the Independent churches, rulers and ruled stand on the same level. All rule, and all are ruled in their turn. Though my friend maintains-and maintains stoutly—that there are rulers in the Independent churches, as well as in those that are Presbyterian, yet he never once mentions what the duties of these rulers are, viewed as distinct from those of the ruled. With the single exception of the pastor who presides, and preserves order in their meetings, and states to them the law of Christ, every thing else seems to be done by the people. They deliberate, judge, and decide on all cases of discipline. They admit members, and excommunicate them. If they have any other rulers in the Independent churches besides the pastor, it is clear that they do nothing more in the way of ruling than the other members do. And if, on the other hand, they have no other rulers but

the pastor, then, instead of speaking of the government being conducted by "the office-bearers and the congregation conjointly," it would be

much more correct language to say, that the power of government is lodged wholly in the congregation.

THE last part of the mechanical organization of plants to which we appeal in proof and illustration of the being of God, is the organization for propagating the plant. This, in the most eminent manner, argues foresight and proves design. It does so just as the various arrangements which are made for the building of a house, in the way of digging, hewing, carting, and laying down of the materials, demonstrate design and contrivance on the part of the architect. What indeed is a plant, in the point of view we are now contemplating it, but, just so to speak, a vegetable quarry, only an active self-working one, where the materials are produced and prepared for the erection of a succession of verdant edifices. may see here, as it were, the great Builder at work, evidently indeed, but under cover, in forming and bringing into shape the embryo framework of the future plant.

We

Of

Plants are propagated naturally in two ways. The first is, by self-extension the other is, by seed. the first we have examples in the potato, which propagates itself by tubers in the strawberry, which does the same by runners-and in the common grasses, which multiply themselves by offsets. This mode of propagation, however, is not to be considered as opposed to that by seed, but simply as additional and auxiliary to it. Most of those plants which propagate themselves by self-extension, do so also by seed, and, were the circumstances favourable, would do so in every case. It is deserving, however, of especial remark here,

that in those cases in which the double capacity of reproduction exists, it does not exist superfluously and without an obvious reason, but in every instance is intended to supplement a defect or guard against a danger connected with the mode of propagation by seed. The instances mentioned are illustrations of this remark. We have referred to the potato, as reproducing itself by tubers, though it does so also by seed. Now it is here very worthy of observation, that in our climate the production and maturation of potato seed is exceedingly uncertain, and some seasons altogether fails; and hence nature has made provision against this by a more prolific underground progeny. But in its native region of South America, we are informed, and this renders the fact to which we have adverted the more remarkable, the potato plant flowers and seeds luxuriantly, but yields an insignificant crop of small acrid tubers. We have referred also to the strawberry as another instance of self-extension. It extends itself by runners. No sooner almost is the plant established, than it immediately begins to send off runners, which, wherever they meet with nourishment, but only then, send down a root, which again immediately becomes an independent plant and bears fruit. In this case, it is true, there is no lack of seed; but in consequence of the peculiarly rapid tendency which this plant has to deteriorate and exhaust the soil in which it grows, there is what is equivalent to this, a lack of the means of growth. Strawberry plants, if con

fined to the same soil, will bear fruit only for two or three years at farthest, and simply, because the nourishing qualities of the soil are exhausted. The propagation therefore by runners, may be described as a compensatory provision with a view to this defect -a species of contrivance on the part of nature, and a most ingenious one, for giving to what may be called, as far as bearing is concerned, a biennial or triennial plant the advantage of a perennial one. We would especially, however, here advert, in illustration of our remark, to the third instance of self-extension referred to; namely, that of the grasses by offshoots. What a wise, what a beautiful contrivance is this! Being not only intended for all climates, but being especially destined to form the food of the grazing animals, which are constantly cropping their tender leaves, they would be manifestly incapable of reproducing themselves at all if they could do it only by seed. Now, mark how peculiarly, in this respect, as Paley well expresses it, grasses are the care of nature. Not only are they rendered capable of propagating themselves by the roots, and thus spread themselves around in every direction, but the capability is made to grow and keep pace with the necessity. They thrive well under a treatment by which other plants are destroyed. The more their leaves are consumed, the more their roots increase. The more they are trampled upon, the thicker they grow.

As, however, the mode of propagation by seed is the common and ordinary one, and the only mode by which the species is continued, for propagation by self-extension, in whatever way effected, is merely the propagation of the individual, we shall more particularly call attention to the various admirable provisions by which this is secured. Notice first of all, the provision made for preparing for the seed. Before the seed is formed, there are preparations made

having an obvious reference to itpreparations as plainly made in foresight of the seed which is afterwards to exist, as are those made for the building of a house before a stone of it is laid, or the foundations traced. We may advert here to two very striking instances of this creative forethought; the first in trees and shrubs, the second in tuberous and bulbous plants. In trees and shrubs preparations are made the one year, in the form of flower-buds, for the seed of the next. The prospective character of this contrivance is rendered especially remarkable by its evident reference, not only to the following spring and summer which are to expand these buds into blossoms and flowers, and ripen them into fruit, but to the intervening winter, which is plainly foreseen, and as plainly provided against. Now, what we are here called to remark is, how nature has so framed her preparations as to resist the trials and severities of the season before they were seen or felt. There is first the wrapping up of the tender embryos in a form so firm and compact, as, we do not say, to look like art, but to defy the imitation of art. There is, secondly, the covering of this embryo bud in a sheath of scales, each lapping over the other so closely, as to be impervious to the elements. And, as if all this were not enough, there is, thirdly, in the colder climates added a coat of gum, or resin, which, covering the scaly ends, resists all but the most extraordinary frosts. But in tuberous and bulbous plants, the contrivance is if possible still more striking. The bud is the embryo of the seed. But, in the plants to which we now refer, the preparations go still further back, are taken up much earlier. There is provision made for the seed before it exists even in bud or embryo. The bulb, for example, of the turnip, and the root of the carrot, are plainly intended to prepare for the seeding of the plant