this is consonant to the practice of many of the reformed churches, who will not admit any into their communion, without receiving satisfaction, as to their having these qualifications for this ordinance. And, since the matter in controversy with them principally respects the manner in which this is to be gi ven, and the concern of the church herein, we may take occasion to infer, from hence, that there is the highest reason that the church should receive satisfaction, as well as those who preside over it; inasmuch as they are obliged, in conscience, to have communion with them, and reckon them among the number of those who have been made partakers of the grace of Christ, which they cannot well be said to do, unless this be, some way or other, made visible to them; which leads us to consider,

2dly, The manner in which this profession is to be made visible, namely, whether it is to be done by every one in his own person; or a report hereof by another in his name, may be deemed sufficient. This I can reckon no other than a circumstance; and therefore one of these ways is not so far to be insisted on, as that a person should be denied this privilege, (whose qualifications for it are not be questioned) because he is unwilling to comply with it, as thinking that the main end designed thereby may be as effectually answered by the other. If a person be duly qualified, as the apostle says concerning Timothy, to make a good profession before many witnesses, 1 Tim. vi. 12. and this may not only have a tendency to answer the end of giving satisfaction to them, but be an expedient, in an uncommon degree, to promote their edification; if he have something remarkable to impart, and desire to bear his testimony to the grace of God, which he has experienced, in his own person, and thereby to induce others to join with him in giving him the glory of it, there is no law of God, or nature that prohibits, or forbids him to do it; nor ought this to be censured, as though it could not be done, without its being liable to the common imputation, as though pride must be the necessary inducement leading him thereunto; for that is such an instance of censure and reproach, as is unbecoming Christians, especially when it is alleged as an universal exception against it. Nevertheless, I am far from pleading for this, as a necessary term of communion; nor do I think that a person's desire to give the church satisfaction, in such a way, ought always to be complied with; since whatever occasion some may suppose they have for it, all are not fit to do it, in such a way, as may tend to the church's edification. There are various other ways by which a church may know, that those who are proposed to its communion have a right to it, which I forbear to mention; but one of them is not to be so far insisted on, as that

a bare refusal to comply with it rather than another, provided the general end be answered, should debar a person otherwise qualified for it, from church-communion. The church being thus satisfied, he is joined to it by their consent, and is hereby laid under equal engagements with them, to walk in all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord blameless. And this leads us to consider,

(2) The exclusion of members from church-communion. This is agreeable to the laws of society, as well as their admission into it; and hereby a becoming zeal is expressed for the glory of God, and a public testimony given against those who discover the insincerity of their professed subjection to Christ, which was the ground and reason of their being admitted into that relation, which now they appear to have forfeited, this leads us to consider,

First, That the church has a right to exclude those from its communion who appear to be unqualified for it, or a reproach to it; under which head, I cannot but take notice of the opinion of the Erastians, that a church has no power, distinct from the civil government, to exclude persons from its communion. This was advanced by Erastus, a physician in Germany, soon after the beginning of the reformation: and that, which seems to have given occasion hereunto, was the just prejudice which he entertained against the Popish doctrine, concerning the independency of the church upon the state; which was then, and is at this day, maintained, and abused to such a degree, that if a clergyman insults the government, and sets himself at the head of a rebellion against his lawful prince, or is guilty of any other enormous crimes, he flies to the church for protection, and generally finds it there, especially if the king should, in any respect, disoblige them, or refuse to lay his crown at their feet, if they desire it: this, I say, was a just prejudice, which gave the first rise to this opinion, in which, opposing one extreme the first founder of it ran into another.

The argument, by which it is generally supported, is, that this tends to erect, or set up one government in another :* but this is not contrary to the law of nature and nations, when a smaller government is not co-ordinate with the other, but allowed and protected by it: the government of a family or corporation, must be acknowledged, by all, to be a smaller government included in a greater; but will any one deny that these are inconsistent with it? May not a master admit into, or exclude, whom he pleases from being members of his family? or a corporation make those by-laws, by which it is governed,. without being supposed to interfere with the civil government? And, by a parity of reason, may not a, church, pursuant not Imperium in imperio

only to the laws of society, but the rule which Christ has given, exclude members from its communion, without being supposed to subvert the fundamental laws of civil government? We do not deny, but that if the church should pretend to inflict corporal punishments on its members, or make use of the civil sword which is committed into the hand of the magistrate; or if it should act contrary to the laws of Christ, by defending, encouraging, or abetting those who are enemies to the civil government, or excluding them from those privileges, which the laws of the land give them a right to; this would be a notoriously unwarrantable instance of erecting one government in another, subversive of it: but this is not the design of excommunication, as it is one of those ordinances which Christ has given to his church.

Secondly, We are now to consider the causes of inflicting this censure on persons; and these are no other than those things which, had they been before known, would have been a bar to their being admitted to church-communion. And therefore when a person is guilty of those crimes, which, had they been known before, he ought not to have been received; when these are made to appear, he is deemed unqualified for that privilege which he was before admitted to partake of; on which account we generally say, that every one first excludes himself, by being guilty of those crimes that disqualify him for church-communion, before he is to be excluded from it, by the sentence of the church. But that we may be a little more particular on this subject, let us consider,

1st, That they who disturb the tranquillity of the church, by the uneasiness of their temper, or who are not only unwilling to comply with the method of its government, but endeavour to make others so: or who are restless in their attempt to bring innovations into it, or propagate doctrines which are contrary to scripture, and the general faith of the church, founded thereon; though these be not directly subversive of the gospel, yet, inasmuch as the persons are not satisfied in retaining their own sentiments, without giving disturbance to others, who cannot adhere to them; such, I think, ought to be separated from the communion of the church, purely out of a principle of selfpreservation, though it be not their immediate duty to judge the state, so much as the temper of persons, whom they withdraw from.

2dly, If a person propagate a doctrine subversive of the gospel, or that faith on which the church is founded, he is to be, excluded. It is such an one, as I humbly conceive, whom the apostle styles an heretic, and advises Titus to reject him, and speaks of him as one that is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself, Tit. iii. 10, 11. Some think, that the person

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, deseribes 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 be 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 done, 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