in use in the days of the apostles, and the subsequent introduction of this nomenclature, * probably contributed to throw an air of mystery around these institutions. The primitive disciples considered the elements employed in them simply as signs and seals of spiritual blessings; and they had no more idea of regarding the bread in the Eucharist as the real body of our Saviour, than they had of believing that the water of baptism is the very blood in which He washed His people from their sins. They knew that they enjoyed the light of His countenance in prayer, in meditation, and in the hearing of His Word; and that He was not otherwise present in these symbolic ordinances.

Whilst, in the Lord's Supper, believers hold fellowship with Christ, they also maintain and exhibit their communion with each other. "We, being many," says Paul," are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread." + Those who joined together in the observance of this holy institution were thereby pledged to mutual love; but every one who acted in such a way as to bring reproach upon the Christian name, was no longer admitted to the sacred table. Paul, doubtless, refers to exclusion from this ordinance, as well as from intimate civil intercourse, when he says to the Corinthians-" I 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 railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." ‡

In the synagogue all cases of discipline were decided by the bench of elders; § and it is plain, from the New Testament, that those who occupied a corresponding position in the Christian Church, also exercised similar authority. They are described as having the oversight of the flock,|| * It was in use before the end of the second century. See Kaye's "Tertullian," p. 431, 451. + 1 Cor. x. 17.

§ See Lightfoot's "Works," iii. 242, and xi. 179.

+ 1 Cor. v. 11.

Vitringa "De Synagoga,"

p. 550.

|| Acts xx. 28.

as bearing rule,* as watching for souls,† and as taking care of the Church of God. They are instructed how to deal with offenders, § and they are said to be entitled to obedience. Such representations obviously imply that they were intrusted with the administration of ecclesiastical discipline.

This account of the functions of the spiritual rulers has been supposed by some to be inconsistent with several statements in the apostolic epistles. It has been alleged that, according to these letters, the administration of discipline was vested in the whole body of the people; and that originally the members of the Church, in their collective capacity, exercised the right of excommunication. The language of Paul, in reference to a case of scandal which had occurred among the Christians of Corinth, has been often quoted in proof of the democratic character of their ecclesiastical constitution. "It is reported commonly," says the apostle, "that there is fornication. among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." The admonition was obeyed, and the application of discipline seems to have produced a most salutary impression upon the mind of the offender. In his next letter the apostle accordingly alludes to this circumstance, and observes-"Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many." These words have been frequently adduced to shew that the government of the Corinthian Church was administered by the whole body of the communicants.

The various statements of Scripture, if rightly understood, must exactly harmonize, and a closer investigation of the

*Heb. xiii. 17. § 1 Tim. v. 19, 20. ** 2 Cor. ii. 6.

1 Tim. iii. 5.

+ Heb. xiii. 17.

|| Heb. xiii. 17.

1 Cor. v. 1, 13.

case of this transgressor is all that is required to prove that he was not tried and condemned by a tribunal composed of the whole mass of the members of the Church of Corinth. His true history reveals facts of a very different character. For reasons which it would, perhaps, be now in vain to hope fully to explore, he seems to have been a favourite among his fellow-disciples; many of them, prior to their conversion, had been grossly licentious; and, it may be, that they continued to regard certain lusts of the flesh with an eye of comparative indulgence.* Some of them probably considered the conduct of this offender as only a legitimate exercise of his Christian liberty; and they appear to have manifested a strong inclination to shield him from ecclesiastical censure. Paul, therefore, felt it necessary to address them in the language of indignant expostulation. "Ye are puffed up," says he, "and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. .. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."+ At the same time, as an apostle bound to vindicate the reputation of the Church, and to enforce the rules of ecclesiastical discipline, he solemnly announces his determination to have the offender excommunicated. "I verily," says he, " as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 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, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." To deliver any one to Satan is to expel him from the Church, for whoever is not in the Church is in the world, and "the whole world lieth in the wicked one."§ This discipline was designed to teach the

See Period I. section i. chap. v. p. 88. 1 Cor. v. 3-5.

+ 1 Cor. v. 2, 6.

§ 1 John v. 19, ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ.

fornicator to mortify his lusts, and it thus aimed at the promotion of his highest interests; or, as the apostle expresses it, he was to be excommunicated "for the destruction of the flesh,* that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

It is obvious that the Church of Corinth was now in a state of great disorder. A partisan spirit had crept in amongst its members; † and it seems probable that those elders who were anxious to maintain wholesome discipline were opposed and overborne. The fornicator had in some way contrived to make himself so popular that an attempt at his expulsion would, it was feared, throw the whole society into hopeless confusion. Under these circumstances Paul felt it necessary to interpose, to assert his apostolic authority, and to insist upon the maintenance of ecclesiastical order. Instead, however, of consulting the people as to the course to be pursued, he peremptorily delivers his judgment, and requires them to hold a solemn assembly that they may listen to the public announcement § of a sentence of excommunication. He, of course, expected that their rulers would concur with him in this decision, and that one of them would officially publish it when they were "gathered together."

In the above passage respecting delivering unto Satan there may be a reference to Job ii. 6, 7, and it may be that some bodily affliction rested on the offender. In that case there would be here an exercise of supernatural power on the part of Paul. According to Tertullian, to deliver to Satan was simply to excommunicate. "De ceteris dixit qui illis traditis Satanæ, id est, extra ecclesiam projectis, erudiri haberent blasphemandum non esse."-"De Pudicitia," c. xiii. + 1 Cor. i. 11, 12.

That the Church of Corinth at this time was organized in the same way as other Christian communities is evident from various allusions in the first epistle. See 1 Cor. iv. 15, vi. 5, xii. 27, 28. Crispus, mentioned Acts xviii. 8, was, no doubt, one of the eldership. There is a reference to the elders in 1 Cor. xiv. 30. See Vitringa, "De Synagoga," p. 600.

§ In the apostolic age, censures were pronounced in presence of the whole church. See 1 Tim. v. 20. It is to be noted that Paul himself does not excommunicate the offender. He merely delivers his apostolic judgment that the thing should be done, and calls upon the Corinthians to do it; but he expects them to proceed in due order, the rulers and the people performing their respective parts.

Р

When the case is thus stated, it is easy to understand why the apostle required all the disciples to "put away" from among themselves "that wicked person." Had they continued to cherish the spirit which they had recently displayed, they might either have encouraged the fornicator to refuse submission to the sentence, or they might have rendered it comparatively powerless. He therefore reminds them that they too should seek to promote the purity of ecclesiastical fellowship; and that they were bound to cooperate in carrying out a righteous discipline. They were to cease to recognize this fallen disciple as a servant of Christ; they were to withdraw themselves from his society; they were to decline to meet him on the same terms, as heretofore, in social intercourse; and they were not even to eat in his company. Thus would the reputation of the Church be vindicated; for in this way it would be immediately known to all who were without that he was no longer considered a member of the brotherhood.

The Corinthians were awakened to a sense of duty by this apostolic letter, and acted up to its instructions. The result was most satisfactory. When the offender saw that he was cut off from the Church, and that its members avoided his society, he was completely humbled. The sentence of the apostle, or the eldership, if opposed or neglected by the people, might have produced little impression; but "the punishment which was inflicted of many "—the immediate and entire abandonment of all connexion with him by the disciples at Corinth-overwhelmed him with shame and terror. He felt as a man smitten by the judgment of God; he renounced his sin; and he exhibited the most unequivocal tokens of genuine contrition. In due time he was restored to Church fellowship; and the apostle then exhorted his brethren to readmit him to intercourse, and to treat him with kindness and confidence. "Ye ought," says he, "rather to forgive him and comfort him,