here spoken of, is one who pretends to believe one doctrine, but really believes another which is of a most pernicious tendency, and therefore is to be rejected, not for his sentiments, but his insincerity, and, upon this account, he is said to be self-condemned. But I cannot acquiesce in this sense of the text; for, though there may be some in the world who think, to find their account, gain popular applause, or, some way or other, serve their worldly interest, by pretending to believe those doctrines which they really deny; yet this cannot be truly said of the person, whom the apostle, in this scripture, describes as an heretic: he is, indeed, represented as inconsistent with himself; and this is supposed to be known, and alleged, as an aggravation of the charge on which his expulsion from that religious society, of which he was a member, is founded: but did ever any man propagate one doctrine, and tell the world that he believed another, so that he might, for this, be convicted as an hypocrite? And certainly this could not be known without his own confession, and the church could not censure him for it, but upon sufficient evidence. If it be said, that they might know this by divine inspiration, which, it is true, they were favoured with in that age, in which, among other extraordinary gifts, they had that of discerning of spirits; it is greatly to be questioned, whether ever they proceeded against any one upon such extraordinary intimations, without some apparent matter of accusation, which was known by those who had not this extraordinary gift; for, if they had a liberty to proceed against persons in such a way, why did not our Saviour reject Judas, who was one of that society that attended on his ministry, when he knew him to be an hypocrite, or selfcondemned, in a most notorious degree, yet he did not; and the reason, doubtless, was, because he designed that his churches, in succeeding ages, should, in all their judicial proceedings, go upon other evidence, which might easily be known by all, when they expelled any one from their communion.

Besides, if this be the sense of the text, and the ground on which persons are to be rejected, then no one can be known to be self condemned now; for we have no such extraordinary intimations thereof, since miraculous gifts are ceased: and is there any thing instituted as essential to the church's proceedings, in the methods of their government, which could not be put in practice, except in the apostolic age? and, if so, then having recourse to extraordinary discerning of spirits, as a foundation of this procedure, will not serve the purpose for which it is alleged.

It must therefore be concluded, that the person here said to he self-condemned, was not deemed so, because he pretended

"

to hold that faith which he really denied; but because his present professed sentiments were the reverse of what he had before pretended to hold, which was a term on which he was admitted into the church; and in this sense he is said to be self-condemned, as his present errors contained a contradiction to that faith which he then professed, in common with the rest of that society, of which he was admitted a member.

3dly, Persons are to be excluded from church-communion for immoral practices, which not only contradict their professed subjection to Christ, but argue them to be in an unconverted state. When they were first received into the church, they were supposed, by a judgment of charity, to be Christ's subjects and servants: their own profession, which was not then contradicted by any apparant blemishes in their conversation, was the foundation of this opinion, which the church was then bound to entertain concerning them; but, when they are guilty of any crimes, which are contrary to their professed subjection to Christ, the church is to take away the privilege which they had before granted them; for hereby they appear to be disqualified for their communion; and this is necessary, inasmuch as, by it, they express a just detestation of every thing that would be a reproach to them, or an instance of disloyalty to, or rebellion against Christ, their Head and Saviour.

(3.) We are now to speak concerning the method of proceeding in excluding persons from church-communion. We must consider this as a judicial act, and therefore not to be done without trying and judging impartially the merits of the cause. A crime committed is supposed to be first known by particular persons, who are members of the church; or if any injury be dóne, whereby another has received just matter of offence, he is supposed to be first apprised of it, before it be brought before the church. In this case, our Saviour has expressly given direction concerning the method in which he is to proceed when he says. If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother: but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that, in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen-man, and a Publican, Matt. xviii. 15-17. If this scripture be rightly understood, it will give great light to the method of proceeding in this matter.

And here we must consider, that the crime is called a trespass, and accordingly is, in some respects, injurious to others, whereby the offender contracts some degree of guilt, which he is to be reproved for, otherwise there would be no room for a

private rebuke, or admonition, in order to bring him to repentance; nor, upon his obstinate refusal thereof, would the church have ground to proceed in excluding him from its communion: nevertheless, we are not to suppose the crime to be of such a nature, as is, in itself, inconsistent with a state of grace, or af fords matter of open scandal to the Christian name; as if a person were guilty of adultery, theft, or some other notorious crime; for, in this case, it would not be sufficient for the person, who is apprised of it, to give him a friendly and gentle reproof; so that, upon his confessing his fault, and repenting of it, all farther proceedings against him ought to be stopped; for herein, I humbly conceive, that he that has received information concerning it, ought to make it known to the church, that so the matter might not only be fully charged upon him, but his repentance be as visible, as the scandal he has brought to religion, by his crime, has been. If I know a person to be a traitor to his Prince, a murderer, or guilty of any other crime, whereby he has forfeited his life, it is not sufficient for me to reprove him privately for it, in order to bring him to repentance; but I must discover it to proper persons, that he may be brought to condign punishment: So, in this case, if a person be guilty of a crime, that in itself disqualifies for churchcommunion, and brings a reproach on the ways of God, the church ought to express their public resentment against it, which will tend to secure the honour of religion; and therefore it ought to be brought before them immediately, and they to proceed against him, by excluding him from their communion; though, for the present, he seem to express some degree of sorrow for his crime, as being made public; and if they judge that his repentance is sincere, and the world has sufficient ground to conclude it to be so, then they may express their forgiveness thereof, and so withdraw the censure they have passed upon him.

But, in crimes of a lesser nature than these, a private admonition ought to be given; and if this be to no purpose, but the person go on in sin, whereby it appears to be habitual, and his repentance not sincere, after this, the cause is to be brought before the church; but, in order hereunto, the person that first reproved him, must take one or two more, that they may join in the second reproof; and, if all this be to no purpose, then they are to appear as evidences against him, and the church is to give him a public admonition; and, if this solemn ordinance prove ineffectual, then he is to be excluded, and his exclusion is styled his being to them as an Heathen-man, or Publican, that is, they have no farther relation to him any more than they have to the Heathen or Publicans, or no immediate care of

him, any otherwise than as they are to desire to know whether this censure be blessed for his advantage. And this leads us,

(4.) To consider the temper with which this censure ought to be denounced, and the consequences thereof, with respect to him that falls under it. The same frame of spirit ought to discover itself in this, as in all other reproofs, for sin committed, in which there ought to be a zeal expressed for the glory of God, and, at the same time, compassion to the souls of them, who have rendered themselves obnoxious to it, without the least degree of hatred redounding to their persons. The crime is to be aggravated in proportion to the nature thereof, that so he that has committed it may be brought under conviction, and be humbled for his sin, and yet he is to be made sensible that his spiritual advantage is intended thereby.

This is very contrary to those methods which were taken in the corrupt state of the Jewish church, who, when they excommunicated persons, denounced several curses against them; and their behaviour consequent thereupon, was altogether unjustifiable. We have an account, in some of their writings, of two degrees of excommunication practised among them, one of which only deprived them of some privileges which that church enjoyed, but not of all. Another carried in it more terror, by reason of several anathemas annexed to it, which contained a great abuse and perversion of the design of that law relating to the curses that were to be denounced on mount Ebal, mentioned in Deut. xxvii. which was not given as a form, to be used in excommunication, but to shew them what sin deserved, and that this might be an expedient to prevent those sins, which would expose them to the divine wrath and curse *. And though they pretend to have a warrant for this from Deborah, and Barak's cursing Meroz, Judges v. 23. or Joshua's denouncing a curse upon him that should rebuild Jericho, Joshua vi. 26. yet this does not give countenance to their proceedings herein; for we must distinguish between those anathemas, which were denounced by immediate divine direction, by some that had the spirit of prophecy, and those curses which were denounced by others who were altogether destitute thereof t

Moreover, as the Jews, in the degenerate ages of that church, abused the ordinance of excommunication, as above-mentioned; so they discovered such a degree of hatred to those whom

• The former of these Jewish writers call 7 Niddui; the latter they call Cherem, or DW Scammatha, and was performed with several execrations, by which they, as it were, bound them over to suffer both temporal and eternal punishments. See Lightfoot's Hora Hebr. & Talmud. in 1 Cor. v 5.

+ See more on this subject in Vitringa de Synagog. Vet. Pag. 745. and also the form used, and the instrument drawn up, when a person was excommunicated and anathematized, in Selden de jure Nat. & Gent. Lib. IV. cap. 7. and Burt. Lex. Talm. in voce CHEREM

they excommunicated, as ought not to be expressed to the vilest of men. An instance of this we have in their behaviour towards the Samaritans, who, according to the account we have from Jewish writers, were excommunicated in Ezra's time, for building a temple on mount Gerizzim, and setting up corrupt worship there, in opposition to that which ought to have been performed in the temple at Jerusalem. For this they were justly excluded from the Jewish church *; but their morose behaviour towards them was unwarrantable. That there was an irreconcilable enmity between them, appears from the woman of Samaria's answer to our Saviour, when desiring her to give him water; from whence it is evident that he was far from approving of this behaviour of the Jews towards them: the woman was amazed that he should ask water of her, and hereupon says to him, How is it, that thou, being a few, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, John iv. 9. that is, they retain that old rancour and prejudice against them, that they will not have any dealings with them which contain the least obligation on either side. These things were consequences of excommunication which they had no ground for in scripture.

As for the Christian church, they seem to have followed the Jews too much in that, in which they are not to be imitated. Hence arose the distinction between the greater and the lesser excommunication, which is agreeable, though expressed in other words, to that which was before mentioned; and those anathemas, which were denounced against persons excommunicated by them, how much soever it might have argued their zeal against the crimes they committed, yet it is no example for us to follow. It is beyond dispute, that they endeavour to make this censure as much dreaded as was possible, to deter men from committing those crimes that might deserve it. Tertullian calls it, An anticipation of the future judgment ; and Cyprian supposes such an one to be far from a state of salvation .

And some have supposed, that persons, when excommunicated, were possessed by the devil, which they conclude to be the sense of the apostle, 1 Cor. v. 5. when he speaks of delivering such unto Satan §; and that Satan actually seized, and took possession of them; and that God granted this as an expedient, to strike a terror into the minds of men, to prevent many

* See an account of the manner of their excommunication, and the curse denounced against them at that time, and the first cause of it, taken from Josephus, and other Jewish writers, in Lightfoot's Works, Vol. II. Pag. 538–540. and Vol. I. Pag. 599.

Vid. Tert Apol. cap. 39. Summum futuri judicii præjudicium.

Vid Cypr. de Orat. Dom. Timendum est, & orandum, ne dum quis abstertus separatur a Christi corpore, procul remaneat a salute

Vid. Cave's Prim. Christ. Part. III. cap. 5.