THE SOVEREIGNTY OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE CHURCH.

ROMANS xiv. 7, 8.

None of us liveth to bimself, and no man dieth to himself. For, whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or, whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore or die, we are the Lord's.

THESE words are a general maxira, which St. Paul lays down for the decision of a particular controverfy. We cannot well enter into the apostle's meaning, unless we understand the particular fubje&t, which led him to exprefs himfelf in this manner. Our first reflections, therefore, will tend to explain the subject, and afterward we will extend our meditations to greater objects. We will attend to the text in that point of view, in which those chriftians are moft interested, who have repeatedly engaged to devote themselves wholly to Jefus Chrift; to confecrate to him through life, and to commit to him at death, not only with fubmiffion, but alfo with joy, thofe fouls, over which he hath acquired the nobleft right. Thus fhall we verify, in the moft pure and elevated of all fenfes, this faying of the apostle, None of us livetb to bimself, and no man dieth to himself. For, whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or, whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore or die, we are the Lord's.

St. Paul propofed in the text, and in fome of the preceding and following verfes, to establish the doctrine of toleration. By toleration, we mean, that difpolition of a chriftian, which, on a

G

principle

A

principle of benevolence, inclines him to hold communion with a man, who, through weakness of mind, mixeth with the truths of religion fome errors, that are not entirely incompatible with it; and with the new teftament worship fome ceremonies, which are unfuitable to its elevation and fimplicity, but which, however, do not destroy its effence.

Retain every part of this definition, for each is effential to the fubject defined. I fay, that he, who exerciseth toleration, acts on a principle of benevolence; for were he to act on a principle of indolence, or of contempt for religion, his dif pofition of mind, far from being a virtue worthy of praife, would be a vice fit only for execration. Toleration, I fay, is to be exercised towards him only, who errs through weakness of mind; for he, who perfifts in his error through arrogance, and for the fake of rending the church, deferves rigorous punishment. I fay, further, that he, who exerciseth toleration, doth not confine himfelf to praying for him, who is the object of it, and to endeavouring to reclaim him; he proceeds further, and holds communion with him; that is to fay, he affifts at the fame religious exercises, and partakes of the Lord's fupper at the fame table. Without this communion, can we confider him, whom we pretend to tolerate, as a brother in the fenfe of St. Paul? I add, finally, erroneous sentiments, which are tolerated, must be compatible with the great truths of religion; and observances, which are tolerated, must not destroy the essence of evangelical worship, although they are incongruous with its fimplicity and glory. How can I affiat in a fervice, which, in my opinion, is an infult on the God whom I adore? How can I approach the table of the Lord with a man, who rejects all the mysteries, which God exhibits there? and fo of the reft

Retain,

Retain, then, all the parts of this definition, and you will form a juft notion of toleration.

This moderation, always neceffary among christians, was particularly fo in the primitive' ages of chriftianity. The firft churches were compofed of two forts of profelytes; fome of" them were born of Jewish parents, and had been educated in Judaifm, others were converted from paganism and beth, generally speaking, after they had embraced' chriftianity, preferved fome traces of the religions which they had renounced. Some of them retained fcruples, from which juft notions of chriftian liberty, it fhould feem, might' have freed them. They durft not eat fome foods which God gave for the nourishment of mankind, I mean, the flesh of animals, and they ate only berbs. They fet apart certain days for devotional exercifes: not from that wife motive, which ought to engage every rational man to take a portion of his life from the tumult of the world, in order to confecrate it to the fervice of his Creator; but from I know not what notion of pre-eminence, which they attributed to fome days above others. Thus far all are agreed in regard to the defign of St. Paul in the text.

Nor is there any difficulty in determining which of the two orders of chriftians, of whom we spoke, St. Paul confiders as an object of toleration; whether that clafs which came from the Gentiles, or that which came from the Jews. It is plain the laft is intended. Every body knows that the law of Mofes ordained a great. number of feafts under the, penalty of the great anathema. It was very natural for the converted Jews to retain a fear of incurring that penal ty, which followed the infraction of thofe laws, and to carry their veneration for thofe feftivals too far.

There was one whole fect among the Jews, that abstained entirely from the flesh of animals;

they

they were the Essenes, Jofephus exprefsly af firms this; and Philo affures us, that their tables were free from every thing that had blood, and were ferved with only bread, falt, and hyffop As the Effenes profeffed a feverity of manners,. which had fome likeness to the morality of Jefus Chrift, it is probable, many of them embraced chriftiarity, and in it interwove a part of the peculiarities of their own fect..

I do not think, however, that St. Paul had any particular view to the Effenes; at least, we are not obliged to fuppofe, that his views were confined to them. All the world know, that Jews bave an aversion to blood. A Jew, exact in his religion, does not eat flesh now-a-days with chrif- tians, left the latter fhould not bave taken fufficient care to discharge the blood. When, therefore, St. Paul defcribes converted Jews by their ferupulofity in regard to the eating of blood, he does not speak of what they did in their own families, but of what they practifed, when they were invited to a convivial repaft with people, who thought themfelves free from the prohibition of eating blood, whether they were Gentiles yet in- volved in the darkness of paganism, or Gentile converts to chriftianity. Thus far our fubject is free from difficulty.

r

The difficulty lies in the connexion of the maxim in the text with the end, which St. Paul propofeth in establishing it. What lation is there between chriftian toleration and this mix im, None of us liveth to bimself, and no man dieth to himself? How doth it follow from this

inciple, whether we live, we live unto the Lord;, or, whether we die, we die unto the Lord; how doth it follow from this principle, that we ought to tolerate those, who, through the weakness of their minds, mix fome errors with the grand truths of chriftianity, and with the new teftament worship fome ceremonies, which obfcure its fim plicity, and debafe its glory? The

The folution lies in the connexion of the text With the foregoing verfes, and particularly with the fourth verfe, who art thou, that judgest another man's servant ? To judge, in this place, does not fignify to difcern, but to condemn. The word has this meaning in a hundred paffages of the new teftament. I confine myfelf to one palfage for example. "If we judge ourselves, we fhould not be judged," 1 Cor. xi. 31. that is to fay, if we would condemn ourfelves at the tribu nal of repentance, after we have partaken unworthily of the Lord's fupper, we fhould not be condemned at the tribunal of divine juftice. like manner, who art thou, that judgest another man's servant? is as much as to fay, who art thou that condemnest ? St. Paul meant to make the chriftians of Rome understand, that it belonged only to the fovereign of the church to abfolve or to condemn, as he faw fit.

In

But who is the fupreme head of the church? Jefus Chrift, Jefus Chrift, who, with his Father, is over all, God blessed for ever, Rom. ix. 5. Jefus Chrift, by dying for the church, acquired this fupremacy, and in virtue of it all true chrif tians render him the homage of adoration. Allthis is clearly expreffed by our apostle, and gives us an occafion to treat of one of the most abftrufc points of chriftian theology.

That Jefus Chrift is the fupreme head of the church, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, is expreffed by the apostle in the most clear and explicit manner; för after he hath faid, in the words of the text, whether we live, or die, we are the Lord's, be adds immediately, for to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

That this Jefus, whose, the apoftle fays, we are, is God, the apostle does not permit us to doubt; for he confounds the expreffions to eat to the Lord, and to give God thanks; to stand be G 2.

fore